IN THE post on the stupidity of smart people, Fitzgerald writes:

Being an intellectual is a curse and a blessing at the same time. I’m not like most people and as such I have little in common with “normal” people who are able to more successfully navigate the world we all inhabit. I often ponder what it would be like to be of a more average intellect, mind you I wouldn’t classify myself as super-smart but I’m quite above the average. But I’m not really willing to give it up either. So I soldier on and work at being more normal and less of a savant. It’s a struggle and it requires lots of mental and psychological gymnastics to meet people were they are and on their terms, something that’s not required of more normal people for the most part.

Rick Darby of Reflecting Light blog writes:

With respect, it is possibly your attitude more than your intelligence that is causing your “struggle” and requiring “mental and psychological gymnastics.”

Unless you are psychotic or one of the most eccentric people who ever lived, which I doubt, you are in the same position as everyone else for building relationships. To connect in a more than superficial way doesn’t come easily to anyone, regardless of how “normal” you may imagine they are. Developing a genuine rapport isn’t about the gift of making small talk or following sports or television shows.

What makes you think you are such a towering intellect that you must either walk alone on clouds or take a dirt bath with the proles to have some company? Most people, regardless of their IQ or role in life, have learned some things through experience that might be interesting or valuable to you. Is your own specialty or field so unique that no one else can relate to it? That might be so if you parade esoteric knowledge or give off pedantic vibes — nobody likes to be “talked down to” — but genuine enthusiasm for a subject is often infectious.

It’s not about “meet[ing] people where they are and on their terms,” as if you are intellectually slumming. It’s finding mutual terms where they exist, and accepting that no two people have entirely congruent interests and values.

Sure, there will be people you can’t find a common frequency with. That’s part of the human condition, not some curse visited on you by the Wicked Witch of Communication Failure.

You don’t have to be “normal,” just comfortable with who you are. That will communicate itself to others without your saying a word, and the great majority will at least be comfortable with you. It doesn’t guarantee that anyone in particular will be your friend, but you will have a platform for various kinds and degrees of relationships accompanied by their corresponding kinds and degrees of satisfaction.

You’re not that different from anyone else, and again, with respect, I doubt that you are so much smarter than everyone else in your environment. Let go of those ideas and you may be surprised how much more easily you will “navigate the world we all inhabit.”

Laura writes:

In response to the apparently outrageous offense of admitting 1) that he is smarter than most people and 2) that his intelligence causes difficulty communicating with others and is akin to a “curse,” Rick responds with a host of psychological feel-good platitudes and accuses Fitzgerald of a superiority complex. He makes the assumption that Fitzgerald radiates disdain for other people even though Fitzgerald plainly states that he struggles to meet other people on their level and wants to communicate well with them. (Fitzgerald’s original comments can be seen here.)

Rick writes, “You don’t have to be ‘normal,’  just comfortable with who you are.”

Okay, let’s look at this statement. Let’s say an intelligent person, someone who is avidly interested in, say, the Ancient Greek philosophers, is very comfortable with who they are, so comfortable that in normal interaction he makes references to the insights of Aristotle or Plato. He assumes others will share his enthusiasm and wants to spread his delight. Instead, what happens, to his innocent surprise, is that someone takes offence at his interest and even begins to show outward hostility, possibly out of embarrassment that he  knows nothing of the Greeks, but also just a general discomfort at being disarmed by something foreign.

Now, Rick would say this is the smart person’s fault, his failure to radiate good will. I think Rick assumes enormous openness on the part of the average person when faced with superiority in any form. He believes fundamental differences can be swept away and the intelligent, by sheer virtue of their natural endowments, are guilty until proven innocent. In light of this, Fitzgerald’s view of his condition as a curse makes even more sense.

Rick writes:

But it’s an odd example you choose, since I happen to be interested in the classics (my blog has epigraphs from Homer and Tacitus), including ancient Greek philosophers. I’ll admit I don’t go around casually prefacing remarks with “As Plato said in the Phaedo … ,” etc. But I have never experienced anyone taking offense at my interest when it comes up naturally in a conversation, much less expressing hostility. I guess I run with the wrong crowd. 

Fitzgerald writes:

In my post, I neither implied nor made direct value judgements on “normal” people, or stated that I was in any way superior to them. What I did directly assert is a distinct difference in the lived experience of those with greater-than-average intellect. I can state with a fact that I am of higher-than-average intellect, but in the end, so what? This doesn’t make me better than those of lesser intellect. 

I suspect my really grave offense is in acknowledging there are differences in the intellectual capacities of humans. Consequently, it logically follows there would be differences in the abilities of those of different capacities to relate with others. I merely asserted the lived experience of those of higher-than-average intellect is rather difficult when attempting to relate to those of more pedestrian or normal intellect. It has nothing to do with how I feel about myself. Using Rick’s logic it would seem that if I had an better demeanor, rather than suffering from undue pomposity and arrogance, it would be easier for others to relate to me. In other words, if I were seen as vulnerable and therefore more human and approachable, I might be more agreeable. Poppycock. 

My real offense is an assault on the modern quasi-religious worship of egalitarianism. 

Make no mistake, I categorically reject I’m any better than others. Period. Mistaking equal dignity with equal ability is the core issue. To this I readily acknowedge all humans are of equal dignity, but not equal ability.

Please follow and like us: