5 ms·

I think there's a bit of confusion here. People up to roughly 90th percentile or so intelligence will be able to use their smarts to make more friends, get alon

I think there's a bit of confusion here. People up to roughly 90th percentile or so intelligence will be able to use their smarts to make more friends, get along better with others, etc. The problem that Paul Graham is talking about is the 10% above the 90th percentile, who are sufficiently different from the average as to make relating to normal people difficult. Not coincidentally, the intelligence of Congressmen averages around 90th percentile.

tel 17y ago
And if anything, that argument might suggest the upper 10% should almost have the lower 90 enthralled. Society is a fundamentally mental event. To claim you're more skilled than 90% of it and still fail to succeed is to not really be telling the whole s story. Which is fine. Maybe you don't care about other people enough to invest. Maybe you've decided to spend time elsewhere. Just stop trying to be so holy that you can't overcome the challenge of learning about and appreciating others.
- apsec112 17y ago
  "And if anything, that argument might suggest the upper 10% should almost have the lower 90 enthralled." People in the top 20% of intelligence (the interval centered around the optimal 90th percentile for leadership) do dominate society. Virtually every CEO, every Congressman, every Senator, every President, every general, etc. etc. etc. is in that top 20%. See the Mainstream Science on Intelligence statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intellige...).
tokenadult 17y ago
10% above the 90th percentile, who are sufficiently different from the average as to make relating to normal people difficult. [citation needed] There is no confusion at all on my part. I knew what subset of the population I was writing about (perhaps an even narrower subset than the original Paul Graham article, the first of his I ever read, was about) when I started typing. I specifically disagree with "as to make relating to normal people difficult." If high-IQ people have a social problem, as perhaps they especially do in certain parts of American culture, I invite them to use their high IQ to engage in problem-solving.
- Retric 17y ago
  I am in that 10% of 10% above the 90th percentile of the population. I have zero problems getting people to like me, however I find little of interest in "average" people. But, being smart only get's you so far. There are plenty of ways people can diverge from the norms of society and intelligence is just one of them. Develop some hobby's more interesting than television and suddenly we have something to talk about.
- apsec112 17y ago
  " If high-IQ people have a social problem, as perhaps they especially do in certain parts of American culture, I invite them to use their high IQ to engage in problem-solving." It doesn't work that way. The way humans usually solve social problems is through asking, "how would I react if I were in the other person's place"? We have specific biological structures, like mirror neurons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron), that are set up to do that. However, this only works if the person being modeled is similar to the modeler. Because of this, there are actually a ton of factors that can make relating to other people difficult, not just intelligence (like culture, age, socioeconomic class, mental strengths and weaknesses, etc.)
winter_blue 17y ago
Actually the people between the 90th and 95th percentile are the ones who have difficulty getting along. Those above the 95th percentile understand how society works and are as Confucius described, "the ones that lead society (by example) so that all of society is harmonious." I've met people from both categories. The smartest geeks I know have no trouble fitting into society, one of them is leading a startup that has received over a million dollars in VC funding. They work on serious, possibly disruptive and hard project. (double emphasis on hard) On the other hand, the rather large group of geeks I know who have trouble fitting into society work on not-so-important projects, usually things like flash games, simple web apps, etc. Some of these geeks (the ones who outwardly call themselves smart) suffer from illusory superiority (some even intentionally complicate their code so that others find it hard to understand, as a show of intellectual superiority; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority) The fact, is these socially-challenged geeks aren't so smart after all; they don't put much effort socializing with people, and then they whine and complain how they don't fit it. The reason why this doesn't happen in Asia as often, is because the culture doesn't permit it. In America, you can sort of get away by denoting yourself as a geek and refraining from social activity. In Asia, since that is seen very badly (much worse than the comical portrayal of geeks we have here); these kids are forced to go out and socialize.
- apsec112 17y ago
  "Those above the 95th percentile understand how society works and are as Confucius described, "the ones that lead society (by example) so that all of society is harmonious."" This isn't actually true. If you look at the SAT scores of Congressmen, Senators, etc., they average below 95th percentile. Many are above 95th, but the average is below 95th. "The smartest geeks I know have no trouble fitting into society, one of them is leading a startup that has received over a million dollars in VC funding." Citing anonymous friends is not evidence. "The fact, is these socially-challenged geeks aren't so smart after all; they don't put much effort socializing with people, and then they whine and complain how they don't fit it." That's a complete non-sequitur. What does that have to do with intelligence or lack thereof? It's perfectly possible to be smart and not socialize much. It's also possible to be dumb and not socialize much. It's like saying the Unabomber was dumb because he killed two dozen people. Killing two dozen people makes you evil, certainly, but it doesn't make you dumb (the Unabomber was actually a math professor at Berkeley before he went insane).

tel 17y ago

And if anything, that argument might suggest the upper 10% should almost have the lower 90 enthralled. Society is a fundamentally mental event. To claim you're more skilled than 90% of it and still fail to succeed is to not really be telling the whole s story. Which is fine. Maybe you don't care about other people enough to invest. Maybe you've decided to spend time elsewhere. Just stop trying to be so holy that you can't overcome the challenge of learning about and appreciating others.

apsec112 17y ago
"And if anything, that argument might suggest the upper 10% should almost have the lower 90 enthralled." People in the top 20% of intelligence (the interval centered around the optimal 90th percentile for leadership) do dominate society. Virtually every CEO, every Congressman, every Senator, every President, every general, etc. etc. etc. is in that top 20%. See the Mainstream Science on Intelligence statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intellige...).

tokenadult 17y ago

10% above the 90th percentile, who are sufficiently different from the average as to make relating to normal people difficult. [citation needed] There is no confusion at all on my part. I knew what subset of the population I was writing about (perhaps an even narrower subset than the original Paul Graham article, the first of his I ever read, was about) when I started typing. I specifically disagree with "as to make relating to normal people difficult." If high-IQ people have a social problem, as perhaps they especially do in certain parts of American culture, I invite them to use their high IQ to engage in problem-solving.

Retric 17y ago
I am in that 10% of 10% above the 90th percentile of the population. I have zero problems getting people to like me, however I find little of interest in "average" people. But, being smart only get's you so far. There are plenty of ways people can diverge from the norms of society and intelligence is just one of them. Develop some hobby's more interesting than television and suddenly we have something to talk about.
apsec112 17y ago
" If high-IQ people have a social problem, as perhaps they especially do in certain parts of American culture, I invite them to use their high IQ to engage in problem-solving." It doesn't work that way. The way humans usually solve social problems is through asking, "how would I react if I were in the other person's place"? We have specific biological structures, like mirror neurons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron), that are set up to do that. However, this only works if the person being modeled is similar to the modeler. Because of this, there are actually a ton of factors that can make relating to other people difficult, not just intelligence (like culture, age, socioeconomic class, mental strengths and weaknesses, etc.)

winter_blue 17y ago

Actually the people between the 90th and 95th percentile are the ones who have difficulty getting along. Those above the 95th percentile understand how society works and are as Confucius described, "the ones that lead society (by example) so that all of society is harmonious." I've met people from both categories. The smartest geeks I know have no trouble fitting into society, one of them is leading a startup that has received over a million dollars in VC funding. They work on serious, possibly disruptive and hard project. (double emphasis on hard) On the other hand, the rather large group of geeks I know who have trouble fitting into society work on not-so-important projects, usually things like flash games, simple web apps, etc. Some of these geeks (the ones who outwardly call themselves smart) suffer from illusory superiority (some even intentionally complicate their code so that others find it hard to understand, as a show of intellectual superiority; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority) The fact, is these socially-challenged geeks aren't so smart after all; they don't put much effort socializing with people, and then they whine and complain how they don't fit it. The reason why this doesn't happen in Asia as often, is because the culture doesn't permit it. In America, you can sort of get away by denoting yourself as a geek and refraining from social activity. In Asia, since that is seen very badly (much worse than the comical portrayal of geeks we have here); these kids are forced to go out and socialize.

apsec112 17y ago
"Those above the 95th percentile understand how society works and are as Confucius described, "the ones that lead society (by example) so that all of society is harmonious."" This isn't actually true. If you look at the SAT scores of Congressmen, Senators, etc., they average below 95th percentile. Many are above 95th, but the average is below 95th. "The smartest geeks I know have no trouble fitting into society, one of them is leading a startup that has received over a million dollars in VC funding." Citing anonymous friends is not evidence. "The fact, is these socially-challenged geeks aren't so smart after all; they don't put much effort socializing with people, and then they whine and complain how they don't fit it." That's a complete non-sequitur. What does that have to do with intelligence or lack thereof? It's perfectly possible to be smart and not socialize much. It's also possible to be dumb and not socialize much. It's like saying the Unabomber was dumb because he killed two dozen people. Killing two dozen people makes you evil, certainly, but it doesn't make you dumb (the Unabomber was actually a math professor at Berkeley before he went insane).