Indeed. Self-restraint as a global attribute [or fundamental property] can't be a good thing. Not physically, mentally, or emotionally.Zarathustra wrote: Maybe we could also find a single technological solution to lacking self-restraint, then it wouldn't matter. But then we wouldn't have the risk takers who make such things possible, by refusing to restrain themselves to what is given.
I don't want to go off-topic for too long...but on the related issue of "instant gratification" and people who have difficulties with it: turns out there are at least 2 broad ways it comes about socially.
One arises generally from too much/many things being "given" to you, irrespective of ones own actions. This one can, with effort almost always...and sometime just naturally through living...be overcome/controlled/dealt with.
The other arises from too many broken promises...and it doesn't matter if the breaking was random/accidental, intentional, or as a consequence/punishment [Yes, I promised you could have pizza. But you hit your brother so now you can't]. That one is almost impossible to change. If you manage to control it in one aspect of your life, it resurfaces/transfers to another aspect.
Slightly more on topic, but still connected to above...at least it relates to Cho's post [and I think some others I read before?] on who we should choose:
Most research now suggests that intelligence has a strong genetic component...so we want smart people.
Creativity is ALSO partly genetic...not as strong as intelligence, but significant.
So we want smart and creative, not a lottery. [[note: neither seems strictly DETERMINED by specific genes...but we're talking about raising the odds, and we can KNOW the genetic part. The environmental/cultural circumstances are not predictable even though we know they have an influence.]]
And it turns out we want to give equal or more weight to the highly creative than the highly intelligent. Why? Because looking at success across the board [and in completely different cultural/economic/political systems] people who are in the top 25% creatively...yes, there are "tests" for that...have achievement rates equal to those in the top 1% of IQ. Achievements as broadly defined as graduating in the top 5% of High School class to filing patents to winning an arts award to dying rich. [though as a practical matter, we can probably choose people who are very high in both]
Another thing we don't have to worry much about: physical fitness.
As anyone who has ever really competed in sports, or paid attention to something besides the stat charts of athletes, knows...smart and creative people ALSO tend to be strong and healthy on average [and/or the reverse...talented athletes are also, on average, smarter and more creative than an average person].
Given the number of folk there ARE, there is no practical problem finding folk with all 3 attributes.
