A social integration question...

Here's a question I always liked to hear people answer...

"Would you rather choose to be the smartest person amongst a society of mediocre individuals or choose to be the same intelligence as the rest?"

While I have heard quite a variety of responses to the question, the first thing people try to justify is a work around or changing the variables of the situation.
The question is not a question per se; its more of a rhetorical proposition more so than a question that has a defined answer from each individual.

Some of the answers I have received were that the smart person could train the "non-intelligent" individuals however I will say that while that is a possible scenario in this situation that is not a viable option, as these individuals will not be able to reach the same level of intelligence as yourself if you choose the smart option.

This question is actually a really quick screen for people; as I enjoy puzzles and riddles, as people who do so realize is that a lot of riddles or paradoxical questions don't actually follow a logical set of mind processes. The first thing most people try to do is to break down the question or find loopholes where their own beliefs, ethics, morality fits with the logical or most socially reasonably accepted choice.

Before you decide to answer and justify your reasons, think about whether it is actually breaking down the question so that it becomes comfortable to answer, or whether you are actually confronting the main point of the question, which is to become uncomfortable and to analyze the illogical choice. Before you choose one answer or another, break down and interpret the alternative choice and try to see what the benefits and negatives are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would pick the first choice, no contest. I would never choose to be stupider just to fit in.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for sharing your experience and thoughts fraggle.

I was thinking back to the question and thought about how some people received ME when I asked the question; some were quick to assume that I was judging them by their answer, while others interpreted that the question actually spoke more about me than about them when I asked it. Nevertheless, its one of those questions that has a lot of potential energy in it yea?

As to answer the question, its hard to want to pick the same side of the fence when given the option to see the other. However, while its easy to pretend on the outside to fit in, its not very easy to deny the feelings from within. Nevertheless I've also been presented with both options and and experienced them both, and both situations have much merit from which I still don't know which one I'd prefer depending on the circumstances.

I sometimes find myself the most happiest when not trying to over-analyze or find the logic or reason behind things; that or after I have solved or analyzed something to my content.

 

Never? Not that I would myself, but I was curious to hear your reasons.

 

I value intelligence. I would hate hate hate hate to throw mine away if it was high, just to fit in.

I value my ability to think in "high resolution" and solve problems far more than I care about being accepted.

That said, being "smarter" than usual and not being able to find your level sucks. I remember being in an art class full of people much older than me and I couldn't even use words like 'morbid' and 'smother' without being asked 'oo, what does that mean? You're so wordy.' It dragged me down. I don't even feel that I'm smart, I just read a lot.

 

i cannot recall for the life of me the name of the phenomenon (or who identified such) in which an individual is amongst a group, and the individual's i.q. is at least 30 points higher than all members of the group (the range of difference amongst the group is no more than 10 points between the highest and the lowest). the individual is observed to be at a profound disadvantage socially, and this impairment is reflected in respects beyond the social.

of course, we must also consider the sense in which "smartest" is intended. but for the sake of discussion, i shall assume that the smartest individual is vastly more knowledgeable and possesses a superior capacity for critical thinking. still, we must consider the "degree" of social intelligence which the individual possesses; but as we are asked to respond for ourselves, i suppose that we are to assume our own disposition in this respect.

that said, i am not sure how to respond. i've been in both contexts, though my experience with the latter is somewhat limited. arrogant? perhaps, but the fact is, following graduate school i pursued a life well outside of academia and scholarship: i can't even count all of my "occupations"--musician, writer, dog trainer, coffee roaster, chef, traveler (this includes innumerable occupations, from proof-reader/fact-checker to stone mason to gardener)--so i prefer to simply describe myself as a "peripatetic artisan" (actually, i borrowed the phrase from someone who reviewed one of my albums). in most all of these venues, i have been a good deal "smarter" (in this narrow sense) than those with whom i've dealt. BUT, i'm autistic and frankly dwell within myself--there are few with whom i truly engage, or relate, the exception being in music. of course, when collaborating with others in music, it is hardly on the "intellectual" level and i prefer to keep it that way. the people with whom i've worked have generally been a great deal "smarter" than average, but still not terribly smart--or knowledgable--from my perspective.

of course, when dealing with smart people, i am often inclined towards "playing the fool." sure, it's a rhetorical device--and often a pretty contrived one at that; but there are times when i genuinely embrace the irrational, the unthinking, and the ignorant, and while i do work at it, i do so in earnest.

anyhow, for the most part, i prefer the company of dogs and i am in fundamental disagreement with fraggle in this respect (i think?): i acknowledge that dogs are less "intelligent" in the narrow sense we are discussing here, but they are vastly more intelligent than any human being in certain other respects. and i have spent a lifetime learning from them and earnestly striving to attain at least some of this intellect.

i have no intention of co-opting your thread, but i was considering a similar scenario a few days ago and i had thought of creating a thread about such (and perhaps i shall): you are stranded on a desert isle. all of your basic needs--food, shelter, etc.--are met, but you are allowed only one companion: a comparably intelligent adult (of the same sex, if you are heterosexual; of the opposite, if you are homosexual; hideously unattractive and of either sex, if you are bisexual); a highly intelligent, but not terribly knowledgeable child of perhaps 8 or 10 years; or an exceptionally gifted dog. who would you choose?

 

No problem, as long as we're on this topic of relationship preferences. And as a prophylaxis against thread trolls, I will add that the companionship is not sexual (especially in relation to the child).
I think after a bit of thought, I would choose the gifted dog; heck even a normal dog would suffice. I thought about the human personality and condition, and realized that we contain within ourselves everything we need to understand humans, however it is the interactions between other self-conscious entities that allows us to realize it. If you think about it, given the experiences you have had with others, you are able to visualize yourself to a degree in other people's shoes, but all the while perceiving it through your own shoes. Its like wearing shoes inside of another pair of shoes, you still only feel the shoes you are wearing.
Take for example your dreams; sometimes you almost believe that there are different people interacting with you in ways that you would not have thought that you could imagine, yet the people you interact with seem so real and so not within your realm of imagination that it seems that you are interacting with other entities aside from yourself.

So reason for choosing a dog? There is a good possibility of my mind to manifest an alter ego or multiple personality, similar to what happened with Tom Hanks in "Castaway" and Wilson the volleyball. That being said, a dog would offer thought processes in ways that a human would not be able to see, and probably be the most tolerable companion on that island (I would imagine I would either feel inferior and incompetent when with the child, to either finding the comparable adult competitive if not intolerable, even if there is mutual respect).

 

thank you. that is what i was trying to convey, but for some inexplicable reason i did so in the most indirect and comically tedious fashion.

still, i think we do experience genuine empathy, to varying degrees--whether it be by virtue of mirror neurons or through extensive experience with, or acquisition via more formalistic learning (i.e. texts) of, the human condition. personally, i had to consciously learn empathy between humans, but it has always been instinctual (for me) with animals, especially dogs.

i can actually entertain interactions of this nature while awake; sometimes i do such exclusively within my "mind," other times i'm inclined to physically enact such--talking aloud, gesturing, etc. i think that perhaps epilepsy has afforded me certain advantages in this respect: some of my seizures are very much of the out-of-body-experience type--the classic type: one seems to be a few feet above and behind oneself, and observes one's own behavior as though a spectator--and it is not difficult for me to imagine the presence of another person, when no such person is in fact present.

i am very much in agreement with you on this.

 

I'll be mediocre. I'd rather be happy than right. I would dread being lonely in my genius. How wonderful was it for Galileo, Copernicus, etc?

 

You'd give up the chance of seeing what they saw?
Things no-one else had ever seen, and then passed them on to the world?

 

Pfft, that's simply relishing your irrationalities.

 

heh--either that or just rationalizing my tendencies! i realize there is a sort of conundrum in there: can one really "embrace the irrational, the unthinking, and the ignorant" in earnest?

it's somewhat like the matter of nothingness which i tend to side-step these days (in part, because i recognize that my own thinking about such is "contaminated" by heidegger and his ilk): i suppose one's got to acknowledge that there is something in order to ponder the notion of nothingness.

 

years ago i attended one of the early performances of the kronos quartet in los angeles. at the time, they were "known," but not yet accorded the respect they are these days (owing in part to their pulling off a notoriously difficult and physically demanding morton feldman piece i believe). the first set consisted largely of relatively contemporary, but "accepted" pieces by bartok, shostakovich, et al. during the second set, they were a bit more experimental--unique interpretations of early music, a couple of pieces by contemporary eastern european composers, etc.--but still, they played nothing that was all that "weird" (comparatively). half of the audience got up and walked out, clearly in disgust, about ten minutes into the set. i was pretty young at the time, but i was already familiar with the anecdotes about the first performance of a stravinsky piece (can't recall which one?) which met with a similar response; yet the reality of such had never really hit me in this way. the audience were mostly older than i, and i would presume, more knowledgeable about the world of classical music; yet how they could react in such a fashion with the knowledge that such is the nature of music--it evolves and continually develops new "rules," which may imply a departure from previous rules--was completely beyond me. it was both an eye-opening and eerily disconcerting experience.

still, for me it goes beyond their social skills and their extraordinary ability to read cues, which to us are largely "invisible": their thought processes are of a radically different nature, but every bit as "sophisticated" as our own, even if they are more reliant upon instinct (which IMO is by no means necessarily a bad thing).

the stoics told a story of a dog who follows a scent along a path, comes to a juncture in the path at which the scent also becomes indistinguishable, and hesitates for a moment before choosing which path to take. the stoics, i believe, attribute this to reason, but i believe it to be a reason of a radically different nature than our own and i am certain--just from having known and worked with so many dogs--that dogs are performing a sort of mental calculus, possibly of a synaesthetic nature, which in certain contexts may very well surpass our own.

 

I could still see it, I just wouldn't understand the significance of it

 

I am not much into dance etc. but it is called The Rites of Spring (in English) although Stravinskt later suggested a different English name. More details at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rite_of_Spring

My wife's niece is a quite succeful modern dancer in NYC and was featured in a re-enactment of this dance performance in São Paulo this past July, called "RoS Indexical" under the direction and by the NYC dance group of Yvonne Rainer, who I understand is well recognized leader in the modern dance field. Interestingly, at about the same time as in the 29 May 1913 original performance, by secrete pre-arrangement Yvonne, who was seated in the audence just in front of me, blew a whistle and about 30 members of the audience got up, started shouting their disaproval and 10 or so went on the stage to stop the dancing. After about 4 minutes of this confusion and interuption, they all returned to their seat and the dace resumed.

The second performance that eve was called "Spiraling Down." It too was interupted dance but by each of the dancers, one at a time. There was a small podium down right on the stage where each of about five dancers went to recite for one or two minutes while the others remained frozen on the stage. The speaches were short, serious in tone and totally disjoint from each other. The first was the shortest. It was:

"I am very sorry. You called on a bad day. Both are dead."

Most were delivered in English, some with Portugese translation following, but my wife's niece just spoke her native Portuguese. I would never have gone, except for this family connecion. I know the above as I still have the program but had to use Wiki to be sure my memory was correct on the Name as it is all in Portuguese. "Rite of Spring" is "Sagração da Primavera" (I hope the accent marks print properly - if not I will remove them later, correct typing errors etc. but must eat dinner now.)

 

I know a bit of this. I am often considered stupid and ignorant. People often speak to me as if I couldn't count to three.
This is very frustrating both for myself and them.

 

Same intelligence as the rest.