The author's approach is that he has a reason for his behaviour that others don't understand, and he says they treat him as "stupid," which may not be accurate.

The author's approach is that he has a reason for his behaviour that others don't understand, and he says they treat him as "stupid," which may not be accurate. The pop culture trope about "genius and insanity," resembling each other has always been presented as mysterious, but the link is that both people are indexed on things others can't see. The difference is that one person is persuasive and manages to cohere, persist, and realize ideas from those things others can't see, and the other person fails for a variety of reasons related to just being high functioning nuts. The examples the author gives are more about being indexed on what others can't see than him being ignorant - but "stupid" is an interesting one because that means something else. If you separate intelligence and smart as being a capactity for abstraction and clarity vs. being able to get or achieve the things you want, one person can easily be both hyperintelligent and completely un-smart. Nerd is the cliche for that. The low cunning of a middle manager can produce outcomes that are very smart, without much talent for complexity, discovery, truth, or consideration, which is reflected in other archetypes. I often admit I'm not particularly smart, and that mostly I'm stupid in such unexpected ways that people conclude I must know something they don't, because nobody with a rudimentary apprehension of reality would attempt the things I have. Beware an idiot with the element of surprise. This is to say, I look stupid every day, and it is often painful and has a permanent record, but I see it more like lifting weights, where given the options, using your body to shift hundreds of pounds without leverage is definitely short term stupid, but the effects of persisting are long term smart.