4 ms·
The question was not about if being manipulative socially later in life is not a benefit. Of course it is a benefit. But you get graded based on your ability t
by dubcanada 2y ago
The question was not about if being manipulative socially later in life is not a benefit. Of course it is a benefit.
But you get graded based on your ability to read, write, do math, memorize data points. Not on your ability to lie to your teacher in a believable manner.
You may excel later in life, but it's not like you can enter Yale because you can manipulate people.
You also need a certain level of other intelligence to properly manipulate people, or at least a certain level of self narcissism.
I mean you kind of proved my point, perhaps we should be teaching/discussing social skills.
- Miraste 2y agoGeneral intelligence and social intelligence are correlated, which makes discussion difficult. Yale's a good example, though. Applicants need a base level of academic achievement to get in, but it's not actually that high. They didn't even require test scores for the last few years. If that were the main criterion, the whole school would be East Asian. Instead, what matters is marketing yourself. Knowing people, or building a narrative the admissions committee is looking for. Social intelligence. I completely agree that social skills should be emphasized in school-not to reward the people who are already adept, but to impress on the others that they're the primary determinant of success.