How can an attitude of intellectual superiority amount to any good? I too was identified gifted (and while I've never had an IQ test I was probably never in the 180s) and while I share your frustrations with normies, dwelling on my perceived intellectual differences with the world has done me no good. It certainly didn't help win me any friends. Being intelligent isn't all chess and quantum physics; there are lots of people in your ballpark that wouldn't come anywhere near fitting your description of a like mind.
I've found life to be much more enjoyable by intentionally avoiding people like myself. For highminded intellectual stuff there is plenty conversation to be had here on the net. Befriending and hanging out with a diverse group of misfits from all manner of backgrounds has proven to be much more fulfilling and while, yes, sometimes they can be stupid, and sometimes it is hard to find things in common outside of the reasons the group stays together, I've learned to see it as opportunities for further interpersonal growth.
If someone dedicates their life to filling their head with obscure knowledge they're just a nerd, no matter how much more intelligent they are than those around them. People may, collectively, be morons, but most individuals are surprisingly perceptive in at least a few areas, and while the prodigies in my life are indeed smart, I've spent enough time around them to know they would still be fish out of water for 90% of what life could possibly throw at them. I hope that your lamentations are formed after you've sussed these qualities out of the folks you lament.
>How can an attitude of intellectual superiority amount to any good?
Can't speak for the OP, but it's not attitude, it' acknowledging/accepting my own reality and circumstances, and the consequences of that. When people feel threatened by intelligence (or anything), then intelligence becomes "superior". Humans are still animals deep down.
For me, it's my mix of curiosity and logic. If I don't dumb that down people become really uncomfortable. I've only met a handful of people in my life who enjoy their snow globe worlds being shaken. I've developed this dumbed-down mask that I have to wear all the time; mix in some obsessive personality traits-- interactions with people are like walking around with an old, dry wooden stake up the ass. Im very stiff.
Even this simple question is complicated. Are you projecting an attitude because you feel threatened (or you remember how others felt threatened)? Is it an attitude if the OP is being their true self? Is it an attitude if the OP speaks factually about their situation? Is it an attitude when the ego attaches itself to ones words, and did you assume as much?
I generally agree with everything else you said. I think you are touching on intelligence vs wisdom (life experience) in your last paragraph. Can you point out other places on the net where intellectual people congregate?
If anyone who reads this is looking for some online comradery, shoot me an email. username to fastmail. Im working on undoing all the choices I made that created my isolated/independent life.
Indeed. I think a lot of (successful) gifted folks wear that mask. And it's entirely possible that I misread OP. But I'd challenge the 'factual' aspect of his assertions because I've met a lot of people who express similar sentiment. A high general intelligence implies mastery of life itself; if one is capable of learning quickly then I would think problems like feeling isolated are something that they find a solution for, as it requires exactly the kind of snow-globe shaking that you're referring to
As for specific places, Slashdot used to have a lot of good conversation. Usenet too, back in its day. Nowadays I think most of the good talk happens on small, individually-run forums and, to a lesser extent, reddit. Personally I have thrown my lot in with the burner crowd, as the group's 'leave no trace' ethos and emphasis on independence, survivalism, sarcasm, sexuality, gifting, and performance art is right up my alley. (Plus we have excellent taste in music, if I do say so myself ;)
"A high general intelligence implies mastery of life itself"
It increases the chance, but "implies" is too strong word here. High IQ doesn't magically overcome all obstacles.
How easily can you overcome isolation, that depends a lot on what opportunities you have. The same opportunities don't exist in every city, or every country. For a high-IQ kid it can make a lot of difference whether other high-IQ kids live in their neighborhood, or in their school.
For example, most of my teenage socialization was in a local math club. Well, it was a lucky coincidence that the math club existed in my city. (And another lucky coincidence that I knew about it.) Without it, I would have to settle for an option that would fit me much less. I know because I tried to find other places to socialize, and they just weren't as good for me.
Online communities can be great, but it's not the same as also having an offline community. Imagine a small forum you like. How much better would it be if those people lived next to you, so you could e.g. go for a trip together. Well, some of them probably happen to live next to people with similar interests, and some of them don't. Luck is an important component here. (Yeah, as an adult you could move to a different city. For a teenager this is less of an option.)
I don’t dwell on this stuff, I just live my life - but given that this is the topic of discussion here, I thought my account might be of some relevance. I’m not claiming that my outlook is a good one, but I’m pretty damn certain it’s an outcome of what the paper describes.
As to knowledge, it isn’t an ends in itself - but each mote builds a greater whole and reveals hitherto unseen patterns - and those patterns allow inductive and deductive leaps to new hypotheses, which may prove useful.
It's common though right? There worst thing you can do is tell a kid they are brilliant. They think they always have to be brilliant and escape hardship because it might mean they aren't brilliant.
> There worst thing you can do is tell a kid they are brilliant.
Other approaches also have their problems. I was raised in a very egalitarian spirit, and thinking of myself as somehow better than others was a taboo for me for a long time.
As a consequence, I had a few blind spots. For example, I noticed that in some situations certain kinds of people become hostile to me, for reasons I couldn't understand. I didn't know what I did wrong, and when I tried to be nicer or more open towards them it usually just made things worse.
Then one day a friend with good social skills explained to me: "They see that you are better than them, so they feel threatened, and they attack you to feel safer. And when you respond with kindness, that makes them feel even more threatened, because it seems their attack didn'd hurt you at all (although it actually did)." My mind was completely blown, because I didn't see myself as better, so I didn't realize others could see me that way. But the explanation matched the facts, for example that the hostility usually increased after I have succeeded at something (even something unrelated to them).
Also, the theory is that if you don't tell your kid they are brilliant, they will attribute their success to hard work, which will motivate them to work even harder. What happened instead was that people around me who didn't perceive me as brilliant, attributed my success to pure luck (because they saw I actually wasn't working that hard). So no matter how often I won the math olympiad, I was always told that I am not really good at math, that I merely got lucky, but soon the regression to the mean would teach me my place (and that if I actually understood math, I would know what "regression to the mean" means, and I wouldn't argue back). This was very frustrating, because it seemed that no matter what I do, people will find an excuse because I do not fit their stereotype; and that thought definitely didn't motivate me to work harder. (Actually, only now as I write this comment, it occurred to me that maybe I didn't fit their stereotype because perhaps I was smarter than the usual math-gifted kids they used to work with.)
I would recommend telling your kids the truth according to your best knowledge. Manipulation can backfire, even well-intentioned one.
I'm not arguing for manipulation, just the truth. But we have to realize that children are not small versions of adults. They have different cognitive abilities and processes than adults.
Yet so many parents want their children to be brilliant and push them by all means to be.
I like the Montessorie approach, "every child is a genius"
(does not at all mean, they are all the same, nor all have the potential to be rocket scientist. But it is a negation of the primitive evaluation approach of, this kid is very gifted, this kid is mediocre and this kid sucks. Societey needs lots of different talents, who can all be brilliant at what they do, but less likely if they got labeled as loosers from the start)
Yes, specialization is a good thing, and there are many dimensions on which you can measure talent. However, the correlation between some of these dimensions (mathematical ability, reading comprehension, recall, etc.) has been found to be about 0.4. That still leaves room for individual diversity of talent, but makes it clear that not everyone gets the same amount of points to invest into the skill tree.
Saying that everyone is a genius just devalues the word.
"Saying that everyone is a genius just devalues the word."
The saying is "every CHILD is a genius". (not every burned out adult). Childs have a incredibly potential, than can grow in many directions. And the saying is also more intended to the teachers, opposite to the weeding out approach. So no, it is not meant literal, it has to be understood in a context. But yes, the idea is, that the teacher treats every child, as if they have the potential to be a genious. (and I actually do believe, most do, and it is sad, that so few actually get the opportunity to develope their potential and rather learn to sit still and repeat and behave and repeat what is demanded)
" but makes it clear that not everyone gets the same amount of points to invest into the skill tree"
Probably not, but I think it is hard to measure. It is also a question what skills you consider to be relevant. Some extreme example, I heard from my sisters friend who have a mentaly handicapped child .. which clearly did not have many skills .. but a big smile the whole time, that made people happy who interacted with him. Could be considered a valuable skill for society, too.
(but I don't know, if the parents smile the time, as he is probably quite labour intensive)
More that it's difficult to find people that are as good conversationalists as they are at whatever topics they're good at. Luckily, smart people are a pretty diverse set, so all one has to do is keep trying
I've found life to be much more enjoyable by intentionally avoiding people like myself. For highminded intellectual stuff there is plenty conversation to be had here on the net. Befriending and hanging out with a diverse group of misfits from all manner of backgrounds has proven to be much more fulfilling and while, yes, sometimes they can be stupid, and sometimes it is hard to find things in common outside of the reasons the group stays together, I've learned to see it as opportunities for further interpersonal growth.
If someone dedicates their life to filling their head with obscure knowledge they're just a nerd, no matter how much more intelligent they are than those around them. People may, collectively, be morons, but most individuals are surprisingly perceptive in at least a few areas, and while the prodigies in my life are indeed smart, I've spent enough time around them to know they would still be fish out of water for 90% of what life could possibly throw at them. I hope that your lamentations are formed after you've sussed these qualities out of the folks you lament.