The Campaign Builder's Guild

A thought occurred to me not long ago: why is it that almost every time an alien species is depicted having hyperadvanced technology (Type II or higher on the Kardashev Scale) they are invariably depicted as being themselves possessed of such staggering intelligences that they are utterly detached from and inscrutable to less-advanced creatures? Let me use an example: compared to an early agrarian laboring in the fields of Ur, a modern human is essentially an alien. They have tremendous lifespans, are extremely resistant to disease or injury, can travel from one side of the planet to the other in a single day, and can maintain constant communication with anyone anywhere in the world. But on a fundamental level, are we really that much smarter than we used to be, or have we simply built up a large enough knowledge base that we can known and comprehend more? Is Steven Hawking quantitatively more intelligence than Archimedes or just better informed? Is it not entirely possible that a futuristic race capable of building megastructures out of star-matter would still think along essentially the same lines as we do? I would argue (from my extremely uninformed position) that the greatest differences are simply a matter of speed and scale. I might find a conversation with a medieval peasant to be dull and limited, and I certainly understand algebra more than he does, but I would question the idea that it's because I'm smarter than him rather than just being used to a much broader perspective; certainly, if pressed, we could find something to talk about. I'm rambling at this point, but my thesis is essentially this: will Kardashev III sky-squids still be obsessed with social media and petty pastimes and what are the implications of such?

The root problem is that we only have ourselves to make an educated guess. And as for your example of a medieval peasant, Eric Flint played with that in 1632, where the Americans are just stunned that there are quite a few people in the middle ages that can speak about twelve languages. And that's just it. There has never been a time where humans never had the potential that modern people have. That brain power just went to different sources.

But I get what your saying. I guess it depends on the ethos of the alien visitors. Are they more conquest minded or colonial minded? I think there are differences between the two, but they can both be pretty destructive in their own rights.

I think it depends on whether the hyperadvanced aliens have access to technologies like machine-brain interfaces, artificial intelligence, nootropics, genetic engineering, mind-uploading, and genetic engineering - essentially, technologies that let people and/or people-machine assemblages to think better/more for longer and with better recall.

Part of this, though, comes down to how one defines intelligence, which is notoriously difficult.

Charles Stross' Accelerando deals with some of these problems.

[spoiler]In the novel, eventually human technological developments completely outstrip our cognitive abilities, even when enhanced - the mammalian brain, even in disembodied code-form, is eventually just out-competed by AIs, who are just better participants in a posthuman high-tech economy. This means that a common fate for most civilizations is that the original organic life-forms end up as little more than currency/slaves/parasites in a digital civilization efffectviely ruled by self-aware economic software.[/spoiler]

Personally, I think there's a potential for "hyperadvanced idiots" in creation of advanced supercomputers but no actual artificial intelligence, but I think the root of my question about the trope is not so much "How would this happen?" but rather (because we're dealing with works of fiction) "What would this be like?" For me, something along the lines of the Greek gods comes to mind: beings of unbelievable power but largely petty interests. There's the classic alien line going something like "We have evolved beyond such needs" or whatever, but I think it would be much more interesting to explore beings who haven't. The Culture series has the Minds, benevolent superintelligent computers, but even their personalities are still pretty transhuman.

Another line of thinking might be "Why is hyperintelligence seemingly always put to such efficient use?" The answer might be "Because they're smart", but we're ostensibly the smartest creatures on the planet and look how efficient and disciplined we are.

Quote from: Superbright
Personally, I think there's a potential for "hyperadvanced idiots" in creation of advanced supercomputers but no actual artificial intelligence, but I think the root of my question about the trope is not so much "How would this happen?" but rather (because we're dealing with works of fiction) "What would this be like?" For me, something along the lines of the Greek gods comes to mind: beings of unbelievable power but largely petty interests. There's the classic alien line going something like "We have evolved beyond such needs" or whatever, but I think it would be much more interesting to explore beings who haven't. The Culture series has the Minds, benevolent superintelligent computers, but even their personalities are still pretty transhuman.

Another line of thinking might be "Why is hyperintelligence seemingly always put to such efficient use?" The answer might be "Because they're smart", but we're ostensibly the smartest creatures on the planet and look how efficient and disciplined we are.

You know I once asked myself something pretty similar. What if there was a lovecraftian horror.... that wasn't evil?

Quote from: SuperbrightA thought occurred to me not long ago: why is it that almost every time an alien species is depicted having hyperadvanced technology (Type II or higher on the Kardashev Scale) they are invariably depicted as being themselves possessed of such staggering intelligences that they are utterly detached from and inscrutable to less-advanced creatures?

I'm not sure if I accept your premise. Rather, I would say that, fairly often, aliens are depicted as being utterly detached and inscrutable because they are aliens (and thus just have completely not-human thought processes) rather than anything inherent to their intelligence or technologically capabilities. Technologically advanced aliens are the norm in sci-fi, so the two kind of get mashed together, but they aren't inherently linked. A tribe of alien hunter-gatherers could also be completely incomprehensible to the far more advanced human space explorers visiting their world-- I think I read a short story based around this theme once, but I can't remember the name of it now, unfortunately.

That said, I don't want to completely bury what you're getting at in nitpicking, so I will say that I like the idea that not every member of a hyper-advanced civilization is going to be so advanced. This is something that, in a way, is older than dirt-- the Greek gods, among others, are depicted as being super-powerful and super-capable, but also frequently succumb to all-too-human failings. Maybe it's simply that the ancient Greeks were anthropomorphizing too much, but it might be more interesting to assume they were following the same thought process you were-- why wouldn't a being, even one greatly above humans, still have failings and ways that it's rather stupid, even if by the standards of its own kind. (This also makes me think of Star Trek. I get the idea that Q was kind of an idiot by Q standards; how else would mere humans be able to outsmart him sometimes?)

Quote from: Love of AwesomeWhat if there was a lovecraftian horror.... that wasn't evil?

Many of them aren't "evil," really, because that's human morality that simply doesn't apply to their thought process at all. This applies to a lot of horror-type creatures, really-- something like the Xenomorph from Aliens is generally regarded as "evil" because its eating habits and reproductive methods are utterly horrific to humans, but it's really just an animal doing what animals do to survive. It's just particularly nasty about it.

I agree with sparkletwist.  While I concede my sci-fi background is not very broad, It's been my experience that aliens are often depicted as being inscrutable because they are aliens, not because they are technologically advanced.  My hunch is that what you are observing is correlation, not causation.

That's not to say I haven't read about or imagined instances where advanced technology is the source of detachment - a species that has uploaded itself into some communal trans-dimensional consciousness, for instance, might be understandably difficult for humans to relate to as a result of technological changes to their society.  In general, however, I think authors tend write aliens as inscrutable and mysterious because they want to portray aliens in a way that seems credible, as being something very different from any life as we know it.

I think it's worth noting that humans who are super-intelligent or who acquire super-intelligence are also frequently portrayed as detached, inscrutable, and/or more in-control of emotional responses than other people:

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4

It's not so much the technology level that's associated with inscrutability, it's that technology and intelligence are obviously linked in some way, and there's an idea if you're hyperintelligent, you're probably both (a) good with technology, and (b) detached from everyday concerns because you have a broader, more nuanced view of the world with greater foresight. We associate pettiness with stupidity, and I don't think that's entirely inaccurate - a lot of petty problems and petty behaviours do seem to spring from ignorance, cognitive bias, and simple failures in comprehension. So I don't think we just portray aliens as inscrutable in an effort to make them more credible; I think we have a belief that the smarter (and thus more technologically advanced) we get, the less worked up we'll be over things that don't really matter much in the long term - the more we'll transcend our pettiness.

Quote from: Steerpike
I think it's worth noting that humans who are super-intelligent or who acquire super-intelligence are also frequently portrayed as detached, inscrutable, and/or more in-control of emotional responses than other people:

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4

It's not so much the technology level that's associated with inscrutability, it's that technology and intelligence are obviously linked in some way, and there's an idea if you're hyperintelligent, you're probably both (a) good with technology, and (b) detached from everyday concerns because you have a broader, more nuanced view of the world with greater foresight. We associate pettiness with stupidity, and I don't think that's entirely inaccurate - a lot of petty problems and petty behaviours do seem to spring from ignorance, cognitive bias, and simple failures in comprehension. So I don't think we just portray aliens as inscrutable in an effort to make them more credible; I think part we have a belief that the smarter (and thus more technologically advanced) we get, the less worked up we'll be over things that don't really matter much in the long term - the more we'll transcend our pettiness.

You know, I get what your saying, but sometimes the pettiest things can turn out to be the most important things ever.

For instance:

Who would've thought that a petty ring would be the cause of so much death and destruction in Middle Earth? I mean we know why it's important: the one ring to rule them all. And we know why it's so important to Sauron, and even more importantly why it needs to be thrown into the fires of Mt. Doom.

But really who would've read the Hobbit for the first time (not knowing a thing about Tolkien Lore), and would've thought that ring would be the one ring of power, or that it would play a much bigger part in a much bigger story later on?

To make this more homely? Who would've thought that a petty young assassin, and a petty archduke that no one really liked, would've turned out to be the catalyst for two of the biggest conflicts in human history?

But again I get what your saying. Nuance does make you look at the bigger picture, and aware of the big problems. The issue I take is that like I said before the biggest events have hinged on the little things. You need to be aware of those too.

When I say petty I don't mean "small" per se - I mean, like, mean-spirited, venal, short-sighted, ungenerous, or small-minded; motivated by things like greed, prejudice, selfishness, or base instinct.

Quote from: Love of AwesomeWho would've thought that a petty young assassin, and a petty archduke that no one really liked, would've turned out to be the catalyst for two of the biggest conflicts in human history?

I'm not trying to say that pettiness can't be a social driver or that petty people can't have a big impact on things. I'm saying that pettiness and stupidity are linked. WWI had a petty inciting incident, but it was also phenomenally stupid. If you were to make a list of "stupidest things humans have ever done" I feel like it would be up there. Many of the big events in our history aren't the hallmarks of great intelligence on our part - rather the opposite.

Quote from: Steerpike
When I say petty I don't mean "small" per se - I mean, like, mean-spirited, venal, short-sighted, ungenerous, or small-minded; motivated by things like greed, prejudice, selfishness, or base instinct.

Quote from: Love of AwesomeWho would've thought that a petty young assassin, and a petty archduke that no one really liked, would've turned out to be the catalyst for two of the biggest conflicts in human history?

I'm not trying to say that pettiness can't be a social driver or that petty people can't have a big impact on things. I'm saying that pettiness and stupidity are linked. WWI had a petty inciting incident, but it was also phenomenally stupid. If you were to make a list of "stupidest things humans have ever done" I feel like it would be up there. Many of the big events in our history aren't the hallmarks of great intelligence on our part - rather the opposite.

Oh well, when you define "Pettiness" like that, I completely agree. I thought you meant "petty" as in small or insignificant.