5 ms·

From what I've observed, those with an IQ more than two or so standard deviations above normal have social problems because they relate to others poorly. Espec

From what I've observed, those with an IQ more than two or so standard deviations above normal have social problems because they relate to others poorly. Especially if they are introverts. Extroverts do better, but often have hidden difficulties masked by their outgoing personalities.

midnightmonster 17y ago
My IQ is more than three standard deviations above normal. In Meyers-Briggs I'm right down the middle between E and I. Certainly I was never very popular in school, and for a long time there was a feedback loop between peers finding me arrogant and annoying and me becoming even more arrogant and annoying in defense. But then my family adopted 4 special-needs kids, and I learned that being smart wasn't enough for dealing with everything in life, and also that I wasn't half bad at some of the other stuff: I made a perhaps-surprisingly good big brother. And then I went into the IB program for high school and for the first time personally knew people who were definitely smarter than me (if only in some fields, I told myself). Both experiences were very helpful in teaching me to have an identity outside intelligence. But as far as relating to people in general, it's not as bad as you might expect. For one thing, almost everyone I know is smart. My parents, my near-age biological brother, my wife, my kids (so I tell myself, but they're too young to know yet really), and most of my friends are all of well above average intelligence. And overall I find that humility and real (or adequately feigned) interest make interacting with almost anyone pretty workable. For humility, I try to remember that I'm smart through no merit of my own: it's a gift of God (or chance, or the inexorable unfolding of the big bang as you like) through genetics and environment. Of course I participated usefully in my own intellectual growth, but there are any number of sad failures of application and tenacity to count against me in that column, too. For interest, like so many things, it's about faking it till it becomes real.
- abyssknight 17y ago
  IB programs really teach you a lot about life. Our program was actually inside an inner city school where the population not in the program had a very low rate of success as far as graduating and careers went. There is a lot of pressure involved with having abilities of any kind. People begin to expect results, regardless of your other passions or wishes. I agree, humility and genuine respect is absolutely critical to relating up and down the chain of both IQ and command. That said, sometimes you have to think if life wouldn't be easier if everyone had the IQ of a 3 year old. At least then innovation would come naturally, and everyone would learn to share.
banned_man 17y ago
I think resilience is the most important trait; a resilient introvert can do fine. A high-IQ person is going to have difficult socialization early in life, and be behind the curve on a lot of social milestones. However, this becomes less important as a person gets older; most people would consider it a good thing for a 40-year-old to be mistaken for someone in his mid-30s. My IQ's about 150 and I've definitely had a problem with girls I've dated not taking me seriously (to the point where I've had to dump them) because I'm 25 and my "number" is in (gasp!) the low single digits, as if not having done a Sherman's march in my 20s were something to be embarrassed about. I'm sure that a significantly more insecure version of myself would internalize this and have problems, but actually I just look at these sorts of experiences as incredibly funny.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  From an evolutionary POV, the number of past sexual partners is the number of women who 'voted' you to have mating potential. Women grant more weight to other women's evaluation of you than they do to what you think about yourself.
  - banned_man 17y ago
    Ok, but: 1. More women should be thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. Are they that unsure of their own judgment that they need to evaluate a man based on the imputed opinions of people they've never met, many of whom are in his distant past? I, for one, like finding a great girl who men have underrated in the past. 2. A low or high number of sexual partners has, in general, a lot more to do with lifestyle and values than ability.
    - Raplh 17y ago
      "Should"? Evolution laughs at should. Lemmings follow each other because 99% or more of the time that is EXACTLY the right thing to do, and 99% is more than enough to win in evolution. And what we learn from evolution is we should laugh at should too. My theory: should is a gambit to control you on the part of other people trying to win in the game of evolution.

midnightmonster 17y ago

My IQ is more than three standard deviations above normal. In Meyers-Briggs I'm right down the middle between E and I. Certainly I was never very popular in school, and for a long time there was a feedback loop between peers finding me arrogant and annoying and me becoming even more arrogant and annoying in defense. But then my family adopted 4 special-needs kids, and I learned that being smart wasn't enough for dealing with everything in life, and also that I wasn't half bad at some of the other stuff: I made a perhaps-surprisingly good big brother. And then I went into the IB program for high school and for the first time personally knew people who were definitely smarter than me (if only in some fields, I told myself). Both experiences were very helpful in teaching me to have an identity outside intelligence. But as far as relating to people in general, it's not as bad as you might expect. For one thing, almost everyone I know is smart. My parents, my near-age biological brother, my wife, my kids (so I tell myself, but they're too young to know yet really), and most of my friends are all of well above average intelligence. And overall I find that humility and real (or adequately feigned) interest make interacting with almost anyone pretty workable. For humility, I try to remember that I'm smart through no merit of my own: it's a gift of God (or chance, or the inexorable unfolding of the big bang as you like) through genetics and environment. Of course I participated usefully in my own intellectual growth, but there are any number of sad failures of application and tenacity to count against me in that column, too. For interest, like so many things, it's about faking it till it becomes real.

abyssknight 17y ago
IB programs really teach you a lot about life. Our program was actually inside an inner city school where the population not in the program had a very low rate of success as far as graduating and careers went. There is a lot of pressure involved with having abilities of any kind. People begin to expect results, regardless of your other passions or wishes. I agree, humility and genuine respect is absolutely critical to relating up and down the chain of both IQ and command. That said, sometimes you have to think if life wouldn't be easier if everyone had the IQ of a 3 year old. At least then innovation would come naturally, and everyone would learn to share.

banned_man 17y ago

I think resilience is the most important trait; a resilient introvert can do fine. A high-IQ person is going to have difficult socialization early in life, and be behind the curve on a lot of social milestones. However, this becomes less important as a person gets older; most people would consider it a good thing for a 40-year-old to be mistaken for someone in his mid-30s. My IQ's about 150 and I've definitely had a problem with girls I've dated not taking me seriously (to the point where I've had to dump them) because I'm 25 and my "number" is in (gasp!) the low single digits, as if not having done a Sherman's march in my 20s were something to be embarrassed about. I'm sure that a significantly more insecure version of myself would internalize this and have problems, but actually I just look at these sorts of experiences as incredibly funny.

anigbrowl 17y ago
From an evolutionary POV, the number of past sexual partners is the number of women who 'voted' you to have mating potential. Women grant more weight to other women's evaluation of you than they do to what you think about yourself.
- banned_man 17y ago
  Ok, but: 1. More women should be thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. Are they that unsure of their own judgment that they need to evaluate a man based on the imputed opinions of people they've never met, many of whom are in his distant past? I, for one, like finding a great girl who men have underrated in the past. 2. A low or high number of sexual partners has, in general, a lot more to do with lifestyle and values than ability.
  - Raplh 17y ago
    "Should"? Evolution laughs at should. Lemmings follow each other because 99% or more of the time that is EXACTLY the right thing to do, and 99% is more than enough to win in evolution. And what we learn from evolution is we should laugh at should too. My theory: should is a gambit to control you on the part of other people trying to win in the game of evolution.