Quote: (01-16-2016 04:42 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:
High intelligence is dysgenic. It produces individuals who think they're smarter than the world around them. Instead of acknowledging their inferiority at simply not knowing they'd rather recreate the wheel and claim the material world is all that their is and there is nothing more to aspire to.
Whilst I agree with what you're saying, this is the attitude I'm talking about in the Illusory Superiority set.
A Midwit such as science-fiction typist / social justice champion John Scalzi would sit in the 100-120 field I'm thinking of. No matter what topic is brought up, they believe they are the unquestioned expert on the subject, to the extent of discounting experts with specialised knowledge in that field if they disagree with them. It's why they're such dreary writers and uncreative souls, regurgitating what they've watched and heard in entertainment media in their own 'work', because they have no real world observational experience and personal point of view.
It's not so much that they lack humility: they're too stupid and arrogant to believe the concept even exists, and, as such, they can never, ever admit when they're wrong about something because that moment of losing public face, tiny and inconsequential to most of us, is their greatest fear: for a moment, their ignorance is revealed.
My observation is highly-intelligent people fall into two camps: they either respect specialised knowledge and defer to expertise, as they understand intelligence above their is possible; or they're too specialised and obsessive in their interests to care if there's intelligence higher than theirs unless it specifically relates to their obsession.
This is how I spot it in a social situation:
- Bring up a particular stop that is considered 'intellectual' in a social group that the listener isn't familiar with:
The < 100 listener will try and steer the conversation elsewhere. This is a fair action, and why social success for the intelligent is having realistic expectations of your audience and knowing what level to pitch your conversations towards. These people aren't 'stupid' to me: they have specialised, real world knowledge that is their to be mined if you can downplay your intellectual arrogance.
The 100-120 listener will try to dance around the topic as if they're intimately familiar with it, dominating the conversation but not really saying anything of value in case their ignorance is discovered. If challenged on a point, they then need to 'win' at any cost, including intellectual dishonesty. (This is why the media is so interested in closing down comments from their readers- their ignorance is constantly being revealed). They are the dreariest people alive, because conversations are about avoiding truth for fear of discover, so everything is vagueness and evasion. This is why they love Social Justice: it gives them a clear script of the right thing to say to be considered 'smart'.
The 120+ listener is intrigued and lets the listener talk, only commenting if they have something of value to add. Obviously, their level of self-confidence and insecurity plays into this.
Above 135, assuming they're interested in socialisation, they're generally-confident enough to not only listen with interest to a topic they're unfamiliar about, always hoping to add to their knowledge, they won't interrupt to 'score points' in the conversation, but to seek clarification. This is why I love this forum: we all have our different strengths and weaknesses, and everyone adds to my knowledge.
The key tell for high intelligence for me is this:
I was listening to Quintus Curtius on a podcast a while ago - an obviously highly-intelligent man - and told him it spoke highly of his character when the host asked him if he was familiar with (I think) an obscure French Writer from the 1800's.
Quintus said "No, I'm not familiar with that writer. Do go on..."
See that simple, confident admission of ignorance, which pivots into a sign of interest in knowing more, with the invitation to continue talking so as to no longer be ignorant? That's high intelligence.
Meanwhile, John Scalzi would have this train of thought:
- A French Philosopher from the 1800's is someone a smart person would have read and know all about
- If they realise I don't know about that Philosopher, they won't think I'm Smart, and I need everyone to believe I'm the Smartest Person in the room!
- "I know that Philosopher! [Vague Statement confiming the fact] I'm such an expert on his [vaguely-described] work that I know their [vaguely-described] obscure influences [that I hope scares off the speaker from continuing on the topic because, after all,
they're only pretending to be smart*, like me] and how it relates to [steers the topic around to an area they're more comfortable with and can display their authority on]."
See how nothing is ever said? It's all a complex dance of evasion to maintain social status. Now imagine being trapped at an art showing with these people all pontificating on the art as they sip wine and eat 'nibblies'.
It's hell on earth for me.
-----
* This is the core belief of the Illusory Superiority Set: no-one is actually smart - it's inconceivable that anyone could be smarter than themselves - so anyone who appears to be smart is just faking intelligence out of deep-insecurity, like they are, so are simply
better liars than them.
These are the sort of university girls who have whole shelves full of Penguin Classics, but can never elucidate upon them, and read Young Adult fiction when no-one is looking.
These are the sort of girls who would accuse me of using a Thesaurus for saying 'elucidate' in writing in order to 'appear smart'.