Wow, finally someone who understands the frustration and loneliness of being highly intelligent and neurodivergent as well as the intellectual traps. Well done and well written!
For what it is worth, I characterize intelligence like this: the less intelligent you are, the more you tend to characterize an issue as black and white through only your perspective. You model issues and systems in your mind as a linear continuum between two factors. A little more intelligent and you may see four factors in your analysis. But your information comes from your bias and indoctrination. You ask questions and defend your position while filtering out new information. If you are highly intelligent, you see many factors and many possible outcomes based on the combination of factors. Your model is more three-dimensional with many opposing factors and possible ranges. As you say in your article, others don't see all the factors. And if you try to explain the factors or possible outcomes to them, their eyes glaze over and the conversation is over. You ask questions and defend your position to ferret out more information from the other person, not to defend and be fixed in your beliefs. I like your example in your article.
Business, the law, and politics tend to reward sociopathic behavior, not intelligence. The political parties push differences in ideology to differentiate themselves and as indoctrination, telling you to just trust them rather than look for a solution. But the more intelligent you are, the more solution oriented you are. The more you understand and look for root causes. In general, people want to be right more than they want an actual solution.
These are just my random thoughts in response to your article. For what it's worth, if you are interested in an actual solution to the political divide and our political issues rather than just a treatise on political philosophy along with an action plan to get there, check out my book "End Politics Now: How to create the first practical, scalable, truly democratic process to solve the political divide, corruption, and elite control" https://a.co/d/0bNnadO1. Of course, as your article describes, it contains a lot of information so it's not an easy "beach read" as one of the reviewers commented. 😊
"The stupid are both easier and harder to predict, as their options are more limited by a limited imagination, but they're capable of being extremely erratic." Love that. Yeah, you can pretty easily pick the range of what someone who hasn't thought about something might think about something. I think the basic difference between "stupid" people being successful and "smart" people is that smart people will tend to see through bs, and since so much is built on bs, they will either play along and degrade themselves morally or not play along and not get the benefits of the hungry crowd. I think honesty is the line, in between.
How should we think about intelligence and discourse when "failing up" seems like the quickest way to success? This article provides a sincere and insightful contemplation of what the author terms "The Intelligence Paradox," the idea that stupid people online tend to "win" at much higher rates than their more intelligent peers. I think there are some limitations to the author's idea of what constitutes an intelligent person (e.g. they argue intelligent people are inherently recluse, however, there is a social intelligence that requires deep engagement with others), but these do not detract from their ultimate point - intelligent people must also be open to the idea that they are wrong about something. I agree.
That is not to say there aren't seriously "stupid" (or what I call 'foolish') people online. There are. Here, I want to share some of the Wisdom I equip myself with before engaging with readers/commenters. I hope these are helpful for the sensible Substacker.
1) Identifying a 'fool'
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. [Proverbs 18:2]
It is to one’s honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel. [Proverbs 20:3]
-- HEURISTIC: If what is being said between me and my interlocutor is not advancing the conversation, or if the conversation grows increasingly hostile, I am dealing with a fool.
- Compose myself when dealing with a 'fool'
Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools. [Ecclesiastes 7:9]
Do not speak to fools, for they will scorn your prudent words. [Proverbs 23:9]
--HEURISTIC: My spirit will be hurt by the fool (their anger is their calling card). I must soothe my spirit (which is likely enflamed by the temptation to return the insult). To do this, I must stop speaking to the 'fool'.
- Properly deal with the 'fool'
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26:4
--HEURISTIC: I cannot engage with the 'fool' directly, but it is my duty to respond in a way that highlights the foolishness of the 'fool.' This means either quoting one of these passages or directly (and gently) letting them know that they are ineffectively communicating with me, their words have hurt me, and I will preserve my dignity by ending the conversation.
I'm open to more ideas, but this has worked excellently for me. Use them wisely, lest you too be a fool.
I thought I was already subscribed. This was so good and so well stated- many thoughts I have had through the years connecting even religion to this sort of evolution of thought you are describing. A story: In the early 70s, I took a philosophy class at my Catholic college only to find it seemed to be geared toward religious indoctrination using the words of some of the all time greats to promote a particular belief and view of God. The next year I took a philosophy class at a state university (both intro level) where the professor required us to buy his thin yet greatly overpriced book which he had written. Test grades were based on how well you memorized and spat out his words on your answers. Once I asked a question (which I really wish I remembered) only to be held up as an example of why females had a general disadvantage in understanding such weighty matters of the mind. Then, he proceeded to analyze my appearance and make more comments about my mind, personality and general character. It was the 60s- such things though uncomfortable were not what they would be today! So I began to memorize and regurgitate for his tests and stopped asking the questions I knew he didn’t like. I started getting A’s and at the end was commended on how far I had come in my ability to understand philosophical concepts. I hadn’t thought of this in some time but your piece is like a breath of fresh air… the best part is that idiot never destroyed my love for philosophy. 😊🙏🏼 Thank you for this beautiful piece.
The essay you've written is a deep reflection on the complexities and paradoxes surrounding intelligence and its perceived advantages and disadvantages in society. It touches on the frustration of not seeing tangible results from intellectual efforts compared to physical ones, highlighting the subjective nature of intelligence and its impact on personal success. The discussion of how intelligence often leads to divisiveness and overanalysis in debates resonates with the idea that being smart doesn't always equate to effective problem-solving or societal harmony. It challenges the notion that intelligence should inherently prevail, pointing out how practical application and social dynamics often favor those who may not fit traditional intellectual molds.
Wow, finally someone who understands the frustration and loneliness of being highly intelligent and neurodivergent as well as the intellectual traps. Well done and well written!
For what it is worth, I characterize intelligence like this: the less intelligent you are, the more you tend to characterize an issue as black and white through only your perspective. You model issues and systems in your mind as a linear continuum between two factors. A little more intelligent and you may see four factors in your analysis. But your information comes from your bias and indoctrination. You ask questions and defend your position while filtering out new information. If you are highly intelligent, you see many factors and many possible outcomes based on the combination of factors. Your model is more three-dimensional with many opposing factors and possible ranges. As you say in your article, others don't see all the factors. And if you try to explain the factors or possible outcomes to them, their eyes glaze over and the conversation is over. You ask questions and defend your position to ferret out more information from the other person, not to defend and be fixed in your beliefs. I like your example in your article.
Business, the law, and politics tend to reward sociopathic behavior, not intelligence. The political parties push differences in ideology to differentiate themselves and as indoctrination, telling you to just trust them rather than look for a solution. But the more intelligent you are, the more solution oriented you are. The more you understand and look for root causes. In general, people want to be right more than they want an actual solution.
These are just my random thoughts in response to your article. For what it's worth, if you are interested in an actual solution to the political divide and our political issues rather than just a treatise on political philosophy along with an action plan to get there, check out my book "End Politics Now: How to create the first practical, scalable, truly democratic process to solve the political divide, corruption, and elite control" https://a.co/d/0bNnadO1. Of course, as your article describes, it contains a lot of information so it's not an easy "beach read" as one of the reviewers commented. 😊
"The stupid are both easier and harder to predict, as their options are more limited by a limited imagination, but they're capable of being extremely erratic." Love that. Yeah, you can pretty easily pick the range of what someone who hasn't thought about something might think about something. I think the basic difference between "stupid" people being successful and "smart" people is that smart people will tend to see through bs, and since so much is built on bs, they will either play along and degrade themselves morally or not play along and not get the benefits of the hungry crowd. I think honesty is the line, in between.
“…honesty is the line in between.” I LOVE that!
Thank you :). If only more people were honest!
Wow. Great work here. I agree with so much, and on other things you’ve made me really think.
I thought I’d been reading your work, but perhaps I haven’t read enough.
Thanks for sharing this with me, it was a perfect piece to start my morning with, and that one cup of coffee ;-)
I would quote part of it, but there are too many amazing lines to feature.
How should we think about intelligence and discourse when "failing up" seems like the quickest way to success? This article provides a sincere and insightful contemplation of what the author terms "The Intelligence Paradox," the idea that stupid people online tend to "win" at much higher rates than their more intelligent peers. I think there are some limitations to the author's idea of what constitutes an intelligent person (e.g. they argue intelligent people are inherently recluse, however, there is a social intelligence that requires deep engagement with others), but these do not detract from their ultimate point - intelligent people must also be open to the idea that they are wrong about something. I agree.
That is not to say there aren't seriously "stupid" (or what I call 'foolish') people online. There are. Here, I want to share some of the Wisdom I equip myself with before engaging with readers/commenters. I hope these are helpful for the sensible Substacker.
1) Identifying a 'fool'
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. [Proverbs 18:2]
It is to one’s honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel. [Proverbs 20:3]
-- HEURISTIC: If what is being said between me and my interlocutor is not advancing the conversation, or if the conversation grows increasingly hostile, I am dealing with a fool.
- Compose myself when dealing with a 'fool'
Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools. [Ecclesiastes 7:9]
Do not speak to fools, for they will scorn your prudent words. [Proverbs 23:9]
--HEURISTIC: My spirit will be hurt by the fool (their anger is their calling card). I must soothe my spirit (which is likely enflamed by the temptation to return the insult). To do this, I must stop speaking to the 'fool'.
- Properly deal with the 'fool'
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26:4
--HEURISTIC: I cannot engage with the 'fool' directly, but it is my duty to respond in a way that highlights the foolishness of the 'fool.' This means either quoting one of these passages or directly (and gently) letting them know that they are ineffectively communicating with me, their words have hurt me, and I will preserve my dignity by ending the conversation.
I'm open to more ideas, but this has worked excellently for me. Use them wisely, lest you too be a fool.
I thought I was already subscribed. This was so good and so well stated- many thoughts I have had through the years connecting even religion to this sort of evolution of thought you are describing. A story: In the early 70s, I took a philosophy class at my Catholic college only to find it seemed to be geared toward religious indoctrination using the words of some of the all time greats to promote a particular belief and view of God. The next year I took a philosophy class at a state university (both intro level) where the professor required us to buy his thin yet greatly overpriced book which he had written. Test grades were based on how well you memorized and spat out his words on your answers. Once I asked a question (which I really wish I remembered) only to be held up as an example of why females had a general disadvantage in understanding such weighty matters of the mind. Then, he proceeded to analyze my appearance and make more comments about my mind, personality and general character. It was the 60s- such things though uncomfortable were not what they would be today! So I began to memorize and regurgitate for his tests and stopped asking the questions I knew he didn’t like. I started getting A’s and at the end was commended on how far I had come in my ability to understand philosophical concepts. I hadn’t thought of this in some time but your piece is like a breath of fresh air… the best part is that idiot never destroyed my love for philosophy. 😊🙏🏼 Thank you for this beautiful piece.
The essay you've written is a deep reflection on the complexities and paradoxes surrounding intelligence and its perceived advantages and disadvantages in society. It touches on the frustration of not seeing tangible results from intellectual efforts compared to physical ones, highlighting the subjective nature of intelligence and its impact on personal success. The discussion of how intelligence often leads to divisiveness and overanalysis in debates resonates with the idea that being smart doesn't always equate to effective problem-solving or societal harmony. It challenges the notion that intelligence should inherently prevail, pointing out how practical application and social dynamics often favor those who may not fit traditional intellectual molds.