People good at math = smart ones?

Seriously now.

The only intelligent people I know are the ones that are good in math. Every professor I had in my life, either in anything math-related or not, was (I eventually got to know) good in math.

So this brings me one old idea, that isn't as wrong as people thought. IQ tests really tell how intelligent someone is, it doesn't matter what other people say about the existence of other "intelligences", it's bullshit. The only intelligent conversations I ever had were with people with high IQ. So fuck the other ones.

Do you people agree?


PS: What do you guys think about this idea: an alien invasion that tests everyone's IQ and kills everyone below 120?

Sounds good to me. Ofcourse i'm in the portion that survives ironically enough.

Well, first we should probably state what intelligence is.

1) Most importantly, it's ones ability to reason and problem solve.

2) Secondly, it's a persons ability to remember and learn.

Now there's many other things that make up intelligence, but these are the two biggies.  IQ tests are very good at testing these two things.  So yes, usually people who score high on IQ tests usually are pretty bright.

However, these two things, although import, make up maybe half of what I would call "intelligence".  Espescially if we're talking about conversation.  One of my best friends fails completely at math, but out of anyone I know he has the best head on his shoulders.

There are different types of intelligences.  IQ only measures a person's logical/mathematical, and perhaps spacial (some touch on linguistic, most don't).  All the other types are completely overlooked. 

Artistic - Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.  And it's because we're intelligent.  The spacial awareness and creativity are not gauged by IQ

Bodily-kinesthetic - I know you nerds don't like to admit it but it takes brain power to do what athletes and highly coordinated people do.

INTRAPERSONAL - This is huge, and is not indicated by IQ in any way.  You have no idea how many math "geniuses" I've spoken to who were complete morons when it came to this and common sense.

The reason many people with high IQs are smart in all categories is because of the g-factor.  However there are exceptions to every rule.  For every "stupid" person I've met who was incredibly interesting to talk to, I've met a genius who was a complete douche bag.


TL;DR- There are many intelligences, and IQ tests fail.

>Artistic - Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.  And it's because we're intelligent.  The spacial awareness and creativity are not gauged by IQ

What is beautiful art to you? Do you call modern "art" real art?

Cause I don't, those stupid fags make some drowing that they, and the only other - instructed by them - persons, apreciate. Saying something that doesn't make sense (AT ALL) and acting superior to others as if it did is a stupid thing to do, and that goes to post-modern artists too (there was a xkcd comic about that).

>Bodily-kinesthetic - I know you nerds don't like to admit it but it takes brain power to do what athletes and highly coordinated people do.

That isn't intelligence, it takes concentration. Any animal can do stuff like that, that's not a human privillege, therefore, not intelligence.

>INTRAPERSONAL - This is huge, and is not indicated by IQ in any way.  You have no idea how many math "geniuses" I've spoken to who were complete morons when it came to this and common sense.
>The reason many people with high IQs are smart in all categories is because of the g-factor.  However there are exceptions to every rule.  For every "stupid" person I've met who was incredibly interesting to talk to, I've met a genius who was a complete douche bag.

Ok, now maybe you said something that I can consider being valid. But as you are saying: "geniuses" are incredibly interesting to talk to (taking away the loosely stupid ones) and "non-geniuses" are stupid (again, taking away the exceptions)

I rest my case.



tl;dr- the guy above said the same thing that I (the OP) did, xcept he didn't realise it, IQ tests ftw

>>4

"Cause I don't, those stupid fags make some drowing that they, and the only other - instructed by them - persons, apreciate."

Of course modern art fails, all those people have low artistic intelligence.  It still doesn't disprove the fact that creativity is a form of intelligence.  Not just in art either.  In music, and hell even science and engineering, creativity plays an important part and IQ tests don't measure it.

------------
"That isn't intelligence, it takes concentration. Any animal can do stuff like that, that's not a human privillege, therefore, not intelligence."

Intelligence isn't limited to humans.  Nearly anything with a brain has at least a minimal amount of intelligence.  But there is no way that you can claim a guitar great like Joe Satriani isn't more intelligent when it comes to controlling his movements in an intricate way.  It's not just concentration, its concentration on a great many things at once.  Computing more information in an instant than another person can.

-------------
"Ok, now maybe you said something that I can consider being valid. But as you are saying: "geniuses" are incredibly interesting to talk to (taking away the loosely stupid ones) and "non-geniuses" are stupid (again, taking away the exceptions)"

Yes of course many geniuses (read: IQ above 130~) are interesting to talk to.  But my point was that many people who register as below average intelligence on an IQ test are not only more interesting than those geniuses, but they're more successful in life because their intelligence is high in other ways.

IQ tests are somewhat relevant because they do give a rough idea of someones general intelligence.  However, they can't account for individuals who simply have a weakness in the narrow field that it tests in.

IQ tests fail.

You can try to deceive all you want, people still know, deep down, that the only intelligence is human IQ intelligence. Other intelligences were created (perhaps by the geniuses) to keep the other ones satisfied with themselves...

When you said about art, I can agree. Da vinci did some awesome art, and he was an engineer.

All the best artists are good in math. Hell yeah in music too. Classic music is at least 60% math.

And I can be around people with low IQs for a long time and be ok with it, but for an engaging conversation, high-IQ is a pre-req.

IQ tests ftw.

>>1
Not all my most intelligent friends are great at math, but they probably are capable of being better at math if they tried.

Generally, math -> intelligence, but intelligence -/-> math

IQ tests test moar than just math (not even sure how much math is tested), so hard to say.

Other "intelligences" might exist, but they probably don't contribute much to good conversation.

No alien civilization would ever do that.  People with IQs over 120 make bad slaves, and their own people are probably far smarter than 120 IQ.

>>5
Dictionary.com:
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. 
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit. 
3. the faculty of understanding. 
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information. 

Creativity is important, but it =/= art, and it certainly does not belong in any of these categories.

Dexterity takes some amount of mental acuity, but it also =/= intelligence by these definitions (maybe 2, but only after a stretch).  By this standard, all Olympic gymnists, Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, et al, are geniuses.

Genius =/= success at life.  phailing @ life is moar common than you think.

"their intelligence is high in other ways" -> "they are moar capable in other ways"

>>7 No alien civilization would ever do that.  People with IQs over 120 make bad slaves, and their own people are probably far smarter than 120 IQ.

I was thinking about doing it just for laughing at it and thinking of how much of a better society it would become (or be proved wrong otherwise).

If I had the power to do that to an unknown civilization and/or planet, I know I would.

>>7

Guy from 3 & 5 here.  I was working my own interpretation of what intelligence really is, since there really isn't even a set definition.  I describe intelligence one's ability to perceive, comprehend, learn from, and act on information.  So using this definition,  I feel dexterity is an intelligence.

You're right that creativity != art.  I got to wrapped up talking about paintings and swayed from my main point, which is that creativity is a fundamental part of intelligence that IQ tests completely ignore

Also, don't think that just because I believe in multiple intelligences I agree with the "God made everyone equal, and everyone has their talents ^_^" b.s.  Some people are just stupid in every way.

>>6
"And I can be around people with low IQs for a long time and be ok with it, but for an engaging conversation, high-IQ is a pre-req."

The reason your saying this is because people with high IQs usually know a lot of stuff, which makes exchanging new ideas more enjoyable.  However IQ and knowledge don't necessarily go hand in hand.  Some people are just plain ignorant, even though their intelligence gives them the potential to be very educated.

Basically what I'm working at here is that when you're having a conversation with someone, you're looking to gain their wisdom.  Although IQ has an effect here (it is a decent mark of a persons g-factor) wisdom and knowledge are not dependent on IQ at all

This is retarded,people who are good at math,are good at math,
people with high IQ good at solving logic puzzles.
To deduce their overall intelligence based just on this,its like
judging people by chess rating.

>>6
I've heard that there's a connection between music and math, but I don't know why.  I'm personally terrible at music, but I'm not too terrible at math (despite my other recent humiliating thread).

>>8
I guess it would be amusing for the lulz, but their civilization would eventually collapse, with nobody willing to flip the burgers.  Then again, if they're that smart, they might find a consistent way to take turns.

>>9
It seems that you're just generically defining intelligence as one's ability to use their brains to a large extent.

Creativity is nearly impossible to measure.

Unfortunately, some of those ppl stupid in every way are not yet eligible for Darwin Awards.

Wisdom and knowledge usually require a lot of experience, which comes with age (at least before Alzheimer's eats it away).

>>10
You bring up a good point.  Where exactly does chess playing belong?  It certainly requires logical reasoning, but that doesn't gurantee a win.

I would just make it, my I.Q. was rated 123 on a day I felt sick

>>1
>The only intelligent people I know are the ones that are good in math.

Obviously, IwiiPa/x, because in all your replies you define intelligence to be proficiency in math.   Then when you ask if people agree, you tell them that your definition of intelligence is infallible and that they are idiots for suggesting otherwise.  As >>3 points out, a more universal and encompassing definition of "intelligence" is:

"1) Most importantly, it's ones ability to reason and problem solve.

2) Secondly, it's a persons ability to remember and learn."

To these points I would add:

"3) A person's ability to generate novel ideas."

What about businessmen, investors, chemists, biologists, doctors, lawyers, other such professions requiring a high degree of study, and even comedians? Though not necessarily mathematical nature, these fields inspire creativity and novelty and this has been repeatedly demonstrated for millenia.  Not every important discovery or creation in civilization has been the result of pure mathematics or physics, (although much of it has), so attributing intelligence only to the mathemeticians is not in accordance with those three points listed above.

(also don't care if this is troll thread, pure mathematicians need to get out of the clouds and realize they aren' the smartest out there or else they would be paid more than 60,000 per year.)

blah, that should read:


Though not necessarily mathematical in nature, people in these fields exhibit creativity and novelty in their work, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated for millenia.

>Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.
>Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.
>Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.
>Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.
>Creating beautiful art is something only humans can do.

Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion
Subjective and opinion

>>13
>What about businessmen, investors, chemists, biologists, doctors, lawyers, other such professions requiring a high degree of study, and even comedians?

I guess these people are ok in some ways yes, but keep in head that I thought about the 1st post while I was on the pc and my brother was watching a Jay-Leno-ish tv show with a comedian telling his story of life. Just plain stupid.
So I'd take out businessmen, investors and comedians from your list.

>Though not necessarily mathematical nature, these fields inspire creativity and novelty and this has been repeatedly demonstrated for millenia.
Lets see, doctors (they have math in their course), lawyers, chemists (that HAS math in it, you know?)...

and well, if you take the fact that lawyers are a somewhat philosophical work, then we might agree. But then again, the best philosophers were outstandingly good at math.

Science and math are not absolute, to declare such would make you unscientific. You box your self in, and you lose the main focus of these fields and that is to learn and discover.

What about artists and musicians? What about there are intelligent people in all walks of life.

>>19

What ABOUT artists and musicians?

>>20
What ABOUT ABOUT?

>>21

I see you've played Knifey Spoony before.

wow you people must have the worse social lives ever.

>>1
Then what happens to the autistics, who have created some of the most incredible artworks imaginable, and a few of which are so intelligent it defies belief. I'm damn sure on an IQ test they wouldn't get jack.

well, autists would probably cry and poop in their pants if they saw aliens

I've had this classmate in my upper math classes (diff eq, analysis, etc.)  She really knew her stuff but she wasn't really intelligent outside of math.  Oddly enough her reasoning skills were complete shit

>>26

It's a chromosome related issue

>>26
she sounds hot

IQ tests set the average population intelligence at 100, and raw scores are adjusted to IQ scores so that they fit a normal distribution. Even if you killed all the people currently below 120, you'd just end up with a new scale centered at 100. I imagine the aliens would have to start over and over again and keep killing until there was no one left, because the last person would by definition have an IQ of 100.

If one was to kill off the less intellegent, than smart people would be the only ones left to do labor that machines can't yet automate. Stupid people free smart people to do more important things.

>PS: What do you guys think about this idea: an alien invasion that tests everyone's IQ and kills everyone below 120?

Terrible idea. Not only because of what >>29 said, but also because then you'd be stuck with intelligent people working shit jobs like a janitor. As much as you may not like it, the world needs stupid people to perform menial tasks such as janitorial positions, flipping burgers, etc.

people who are good at math tend to bullshit less

>>29
I'm pretty sure the original intent of the question was not to exterminate humanity, but to cull those currently below IQ 120, without regards to their IQ afterwards.

eugenics is dangerous and shouldn't be attempted.

Oh, that's real nice, you asshole, kill all those who don't conform to your little definition of worth. What if some other idiot wanted to kill every fat person? Every "ugly" person? Oh, I don't know... how about blacks? Jews? It's idiotic ideas like yours that eventually give rise to slaughter. Who the fuck cares if they're stupid? Are you gonna tell me you'd shoot your mom just because she can't do math? You make me sick.

>>35
Serious business.

the OP was just saying something that would be funny if it happened, asshole.

I'm waiting for this to turn into a pissing contest about who has the highest IQ. I get a laugh out of comments like:

"IQ doesn't make you smart, I have an IQ of 184 and I still forget to pick up my laundry ~kthxgenius"

..It's coming..

>>34
Nothing wrong with eugenics, as long as you don't force people.

As for killing idiots, there's that bash quote about taking the warning label off of everything...

Or maybe we could start a new nation, and only smart people would be allowed in?

What does IQ test though?

And what, except that warm and fuzzy feeling, would the smart people gain from all of that? Low-IQ people aren't all in all impeding the high-IQ people, are they? There's no shortage of food, and intelligent/educated people on average get more money. Smart people are a lot better of now than they would be if we reduced the population by 90% by whatever method.

As have been mentioned, high intelligence is not directly associated with skill in farming, design, humor, and a zillion other things. Many intelligent people enjoy, say, art, or food, made by unintelligent people. If you don't find people that do those things good conversation partners then don't talk to them, but there's no rational reason to wish them away.

Take >>38
Why would you want to live in that wonderful nation of overqualifiedness? How would it be any better than a smart-people-only city, or just you moving together with a couple of smart friends?

Psychopaths typically have above-average IQ, so you'd get a much higher concentration of those.

As for the implications for 4chan...

>>38
If you had a country made up entirely of smart people, who would be in the army?

>>40
And what, except that warm and fuzzy feeling, would the smart people gain from all of that?
A better government/laws, better education, etc. You are underestimating the effect that the stupidity of the average person has on society. And probably overestimating their contributions.

>>41
Smart people can make missiles, etc. Would you really need a traditional army?

>>42
We can make missiles today. Do we really need a traditional army?
Smart people are already working on this stuff, merely killing of people who have nothing to do with it won't automagically usher in great technological advancements. It will just divert able-minded people to do things we are unlikely to ever fully automate, like janitorial tasks. You are deluding yourself if you think we can do just as well without farmers, garbage drivers, clerks, etc.

Passing laws are just the kind of thing where it's not clear that a high IQ is any help. Intelligent people are just as liable to greed, ideology, elitism and other dangers to a rational system. Lots of intellectuals in both the communist and fascist camps.

>>38
lol @ removing warning labels, but some are necessary.  "do not insert cat/baby in this washing machine" = obvious; "do not open, electric shock hazard" is less obvious, especially for some of the one use cameras with flash (they have a large capacitor that can store ~100uF, ~300V)

>>40
In educational facilities, the less intelligent people impede the moar intelligent by slowing down the pace of the class.  Admittedly, the instructor has the option of ignoring those who are slow.  Most of the bullies are also of the lower intellectual castes.  However, these people serve a very important role in the adult world.

Unfortunate for the higher pscyhopath concentration :(

moar /b/tards or /sci/entists?

>>41
Machines.

>>43
I'm under the impression that most legislators are very intelligent, but are just rather malicious.  Greed is universal, intelligent people invent ideology, and are also moar liable to be afflicted with elitism.

>PS: What do you guys think about this idea: an alien invasion that tests everyone's IQ and kills everyone below 120?

FOR FUCKS' SAKE

LRN2GENETICS

HELL, LRN2SCIENCE

>>45
I don't even know why people keep bringing up eugenix then starting "omg slaughter".  The whole point of the statement (at least my interpretation of it) was a) humor b) immediate consequences (ie not genetic)

Eh, the inherent nature of the human mind to recognize and manipulate patterns does correlate quite well with mathematics. Wouldn't doubt that all people of high intelligence are at least passively versed in calculus and beyond.

>>43
You know, technological automation is slowly eliminating a lot of jobs. I, for one, could stand the impending doom of the more personal affairs in life - so long as it secures my car in a dark parking lot. 

my iq is 125, is that hiiiiigh?

>>49
As determined by some shitty 'buy our diplomas' online IQ tester, no doubt...
Is there anything more annoying than people that wave their obviously inflated IQ number around like it was their fucking dick length, while showing obvious signs of mental incompetence? I vote 'no'.

>>50
I vote "yes", because some idiot just flooded this forum with "Sooo friggin tired of it".

>>51
I agree

>>50
It's when they try to justify their obvious incompetences that they start to get a little annoying. "Geniuses often misspell" things is one. Genius is not without an enormous amount of emotional and intellectual capacity, and yet the people who can't even care enough for words to spell them correctly cannot possibly think they have even the slightest bit of creativity to be passed off as such.

>>36

I personally, don't think that's all that funny in the context of this thread. The shallow definition of intelligence used in this thread is fucking sad. 

>>35
I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone that intellectual and physical worth kind of tie in quite nicely. Example, someone fat because they aren't intelligent enough to stop eating themselves to death would be a likely candidate for extermination. Not that I'd advocate this in any case, but if you had done a little more thinking you could see the association.

How do you define intelligence, #54?  I'll trade ya; here's mine:

Intelligence is the capability, desire and gumption to DO ANYTHING.

From my experiences, smart people are at least good in math. I would also say that some of the professors/students that are amazing in math (that I have met) are complete idiots. Also, for the idiots in this thread; trying to base objectivity and moral weight to a test that is completely subjective is retarded. Stop with you’re retarded self created ubermensch delusion because you scored a few points above average on an outdated IQ test. You’re not special; just because you’re ugly and awkward doesn’t mean you’re smart and deep.

>>57
When you used "you're" out of context is where I knew to disregard everything I'd read, and everything I wasn't about to read. Perhaps you should base your assumptions on empirical inference and not social prejudice? Yeah?

>>53,55
But it's hard to know that someone is fat or spells poorly because they're stupid or lazy, or if they actually have a medical predisposition. (Yes, yes, I know. I'm sure you'll tell me that you can tell.)

And people with IQ in the 80-90's are a bit poorer than average in math, but they're not animals. It should have no impact on their ability to control their eating. The associated difference in diet is better explained by higher education and salary.

People used to think dyslexics, and even long-sighted people were stupid because they were poor at spelling or math. It's not unthinkable that some kind of brain deficiencies could lead to being good at math and bad at spelling. And I've seen no link between spelling and creativity.

Telling people to take responsibility for their actions is fine, but making every percieved flaw out to be from 'bad character' or suchlike creates a lot of trouble for people with real problems. People with undiagnosed Aspergers Syndrome get a lot of flak from that attitude, since many of the possible symptoms like bad handwriting, disinterest in people and rudeness are interpreted as attitude problems.

>>59
tl;dr

>>59
tl;dr

>>56
You mean "everything", rather than "any one or more things", right?  By the latter definition of "anything", compulsive gamblers would be intelligent, but they don't seem particularly intelligent by any other measure I know of.

>>59
It's not unthinkable, but we don't know if it's true or not.

>>61
I assume he means an array of things depending on the situation. He didn't just mean any sort of activity.

-Words by Tim Jensen
-Music and Arranged by Kanno Yoko


Gummed up, brain dead and can't decide
you can't pray enough, you can't hide
You can be cool or you can cry
Do it wrong
Not it all
Or do it right

No one owes you, no one's to blame
Save for bad genes or DNA
Ask your conscience the why and how
Do it then
Do it when
But, do it now

What's up sweet cakes?
Who's hip anyway?
Earthgirls are easy
What you gonna do lil' buckaroo?
(Hey you, you better ask her nice!)
All you gotta do, happy fool, is ask your mom

No we all can't be Superfly GQPhdFBI
You can pretend or you can try
Move ahead
Lay down dead
Or slip on by

When the truth seems so farway
Buddha loves you and Jesus saves
You need answers for your dismay

Ask yourself
Ask your mom
Ask DNA

What's up sweet cakes?
Who's hip anyway?
Earthgirls are easy
What you gonna do lil' buckaroo?
(Hey you, you better ask her nice!)
All you gotta do, happy fool, is ask your mom

Kamakamakama ask your mama
Super groover Dahli Lama

What's up sweet cakes?
Who's hip anyway?
Earthgirls are easy
What you gonna do lil' buckaroo?
Come on!

What's up sweet cakes?
Who's hip anyway?
Earthgirls are easy
What you gonna do lil' buckaroo?
(Hey you, you better ask her nice!)
All you gotta do, happy fool, is ask your mom

#2 fails at intelligence for not knowing what "ironic" means but using it despite this.

IQ tests are about as useful as personality tests.  They are bullshit and not worth wasting 2 seconds of life taking.

>>65
Though it was obviously worth the 10 seconds it took you to write those 2 sentences.

Maths requires logic, logic is the only way to solve problems, people good at math have the potential to be good at solving problems.

>>67
No, religion seems to be a rather popular way to solve problems too.

having a high IQ doesn't make you smart, it simply says that you have a higher capacity for learning things.  According to many theorists anybody can learn anything if they just apply themselves enough

>>69
I doubt those theorists also provide explanations for why anybody with an IQ below around 100 can't learn simple Calculus if it was converted to hotcakes and passed out at prisons.

IQ is a good way of measuring someone's computational skills, which coorelate highly with social intellect as well as just general knowledge. It doesn't necessarily mean they're 'smart' and 'intelligent' to talk to, but it is a very good indicator. It also seems that depression can be a good indication of wisdom. With knowledge, comes sadness. You'll find evidence of this in many philosophers of our time as well as people on the internet and those around us (although a lot less numerous in real life it seems)

>>70

the guy said that in his post:

>"if they apply themselves"

Someone with a low IQ could learn just as much as a person with a much higher IQ (in theory) so long as the dumbass is a hard worker and the brain is lazy/apathetic

>>72
>>69 said "anybody can learn anything if they just apply themselves enough", not "anyone can keep up with a smart person in the smart person is sufficiently lazy." The former is meaningful, but wrong. The latter is meaningless, but correct.

>>2
would score a 119. LOL ENJOY YOUR DEATH...DE..SU...DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU

>>74 WOULD SCORE A 165+ CUZ HE'S A FREAKIN' GENI0R

Knowledge is simply facts.  Intellegence is a persons ability to learn and retain knowledge.  Smarts is the ability to apply ones knowledge and intellegence.  I would say that knowledgeable people with no smarts are way more annoying to be around then a plain stupid person.

Claim: This thread on eugenics will be another case of Godwin's Law before it is pruned.

>>64
Haha I noticed that to.

>>77
Thread was not initially on eugenics, but on human intelligence as it relates to mathematical capability.  Eugenics came later because ppl took OP's lul comment too seriously.

For that matter, /sci/ threads don't seem to get pruned.  The archive has threads from years ago.  At most the threads are ignored and fall out of popular interest.

I wants lots and lots of some delectable pot!

Marijuana MUST be legalized.

Luvcow - Are You Smart? Test It By Answering Questions! : http://luvcow.com

jesus christ the amount of pseudo-intellectual bullshit in this thread is staggering

people that try and claim 4chan is somehow different then the rest of the internet are fucking retards

Correlations are not always the causation nor are exceptions the rule. With that said: Seriously, don't panic. We are talking about implications
 by old illiterate people who never got a straight answer.
Especially don't hurt yourself. We care.
________________________________________
What Does the Bible Teach About Hell?

   No Christian ever presents these imagined locations and words as a "state of mind".
Somehow they are eternally politically correct, unfallible modern translations.
 Before we look into the definitions of hell, think about the contrary: The word "heaven"
 appears in the Bible about 555 times. It doesn't help that in a percentage of those
 instances: someone is referring to some sort of "manly bosom of Abe",
or a "holy" presence of a burning God, or a "Pie in the sky" , or a "normal" sky or a place
that is actually a multi-platformed "temple palace" behind castle walls.
Christians are loading several contradictionary definitions to locations and words !
As a result:
"Fear" is "Love".
"Bats" are "Birds".
"Holy War" is "Peace".
"Heavenly investments" are now "Tax deductable donations".
"Heaven" and "hell" are several places that are a visible distance from each other!

   What does the Bible teach the idea commonly held concerning hell? Does the hell
 of the Bible denote a place of burning torment, a condition of suffering without
 end, which begins at death? What is the hell of the Bible? The only way to arrive
 at the correct answer is to trace the words translated into ‘hell’ from the beginning
to the end of the Bible in the original language it was written in, and by their connections ascertain exactly what the divine
Word teaches on this important subject.

What we are sure of is if God was honest, then you should get to see him
at your court date near a "white throne of judgement" whether you are bad
 or not.
By the laws that God invented, Jesus himself has sinned and is eligible to
visit a hell for identifying someone as a fool/atheist.

        (Psalm 14:1) - "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
There is no one who does good" [ABSOLUTELY NO ONE]
        (Matthew 5:22) - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with
his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his
brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme
court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into
 a fiery hell." [JESUS SAYS THIS OFTEN]
        (Matthew 23:17) - "You fools and blind men! Which is more
important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?".

[What about the people? They are the most valuable.
Wash their hands, protect their children and love.]