Epiphany regarding INTP intimidation

[Spirit]

It is refreshing to know that there is practical evidence that people who refuse to grow, are alone or hated.

 

[Hadoblado]

Challenge: get people to like you for who you are.

Do you think it's impossible? Others here have done it despite their towering IQs.

It's obvious that a high IQ does not make one socially incapable. It represents a high capacity, not a low one. If you want to prove otherwise you need to come to the table with some science, because your claim is counter-intuitive to everything we actually know, and quite frankly too damn convenient for you to assume (now it's not that they're zombies, it's that you're Jesus).

Your IQ is rather ordinary around here, as is your inability to connect with other people. But plenty of us do manage it. For us the counter-example to your epiphany is more than obvious: we live the counter-example.

Yeah, Socrates demise was entirely due to his lack of Emotional Intelligence.

So you agree that Socrates had social intelligence? He was certainly a smart cookie. While he died for what he believed in at the hands of political opponents, he did not lack for friends. He seems like an example of someone not using their IQ as a barrier.

I think it's worth noting that your other examples of this phenomenon with which you've associated yourself are all fictional. Idiocracy, House MD, Sherlock... You're obviously exposed to this notion a lot but it's heavily romanticised and unrealisitic. It sounds to me like you're taking cues from the media.

 

[Pyropyro]

You don't have to dumb down to get liked. That's kind of a stupid reaction anyways and you're wasting potential career or relationship opportunities from these networks.

I used these steps to fit in quite nicely.

The INTP can still project being smart (as if it can be hidden anyways) without being an ass. They just have to:
1. research about the people they plan to interact with and try to connect said group's interest with theirs (a strong Ne is quite handy).
2. store physically or mentally any trivia/ useful stuff from said group of people for future use. For example, if say "foo" is doing her thesis then you can ask about her progress a few weeks later as an opening statement. (Si is good with this)

As for the fictional characters stated by Hadoblado, they're mostly just a reiteration of the Sherlock archetype which is, as they said, heavily romanticized and unrealistic. People like that won't even survive IRL.

 

[Coolydudey]

Sounds like a very sad technique.
Be your self and find people who appreciate that. Sounds like a cliché, but many of life's real truths are the so called clichés. They are big truths in small packages.
Even stating that this is a cliché is a cliché in it self - just an other kind.

+1

But because I have to say something more than that to post here -
this happens to me sometimes, my friends appreciate me for who I am but sometimes being myself when talking intellectually about things pisses some of them (specific ones) off. You just gotta be careful how you sound.

 

[dark+matters]

I'm disappointed that this turned into sort of a hateful thread about people assuming that the OP is about people who think that they are more _____ than others (although I guess it may have started to evolve into that in the posts that followed. But I think that this may have been a self-fulfilling prophecy more than anything). I believe that all throughout history, staying quiet and keeping one's cards close to one's chest have been relevant to survival.

"Playing dumb," or perhaps "acting drunk" are probably unfortunate choices of words which describe this staying quiet in order to preserve oneself. Introverts just aren't going to be able to say what's on their mind very often. It costs too much energy, but also it is dangerous to throw out too many controversial ideas in an analytical format if one is not in a setting or before an audience that will be open to that. There are too many kinds of people in the world who do just want to look good in front of people at any cost. But we do feel uneasy about others' possibly having more knowledge than us if this knowledge doesn't fit our perception of what each others' status is. Slaves often couldn't appear to know too much (couldn't let others know they could read), women were sometimes considered "manly" or unmarriageable if they read too much or were educated, and I often overhear or directly talk with people who refer to women with careers in engineering or other STEM fields as odd, unusual, or weird. But in contrast, people light up when I tell them I do theatre or art or music. This is a gender thing, but I also believe that this is connected with power, and the language people use and their reasons for wanting to use it.

Ti and its sharpness, its preference for specificity in word choice, its love of jargon and the risk that someone's emotional state may be ignored is extremely off-putting to many. This may be instinctive, or related to misreading patterns from the past. Remaining quiet, passive or silly helps the introvert to rebuild energy and discharge it in a venue that may be more appropriate than, for example, my being approached by an elderly couple on the bus who ask me, "Wouldn't you rather look out the window? Cell phones are an addiction. Don't you get sick looking at that all the time?" It's a lot more energy-efficient for me to just smile and nod, sensing that they might mainly be expressing how they caught up in a high state of emotional arousal at reuniting with each other and going on a day trip together, and to put away my phone, than it is to express in full Ti style that I believe we are moving into an era in which we are becoming cyborgs, and that even now, we can't live our lives without a minimum of technology- like smart phones. All our jobs and educations hinge on the ability to intertwine ourselves smoothly with current technology. Maybe I could learn something cool from hearing their response, but I don't think they are in Ti mode, so it's pointless. I believe I'd squish their sense of ephemeral wonder if I engaged my main function. So I think it's often mean or a little bit selfish to say exactly what one is thinking, especially when that is generally not the reason why most people want to talk with each other or interact.

I generally want to interact in order to acquire new information (Ne), or exchange fun or new and novel information, but people don't often seem to understand that motivation unless it is couched in a lot of eye blinking or submissive curiosity and feeliness. I'd much rather just download the information out of them, but that is too much Ti Ne to operate in a fair, effective way in the real world. This is still about status and the flow of power, but Ti is also hard to digest unless enough care is taken to communicate it clearly for a broad audience. Maybe it costs too much to decode for some. And also, it's extremely hard to know when you yourself are wrong since it's easy to misinterpret patterns from the past and project them inaccurately into the present. Maybe your ideas are terrible, or communicated poorly, not misunderstood. But being misunderstood when you end up being right creates a lot of uncertainty in these matters.

Knowledge is still an emotional, highly charged power thing at times. Not all the time, certainly, but definitely sometimes, and it's really helpful to notice when the discussion becomes less an exchange of ideas and more of a power struggle. Sometimes, we just have to laugh at the boss's joke, we have to smile and nod while the crazy homeless person talks about how he stabbed someone 10 years ago, we have to let go of how we question whether someone just said something accurate in order to let them finish and get their points across. And most of the time, it seems like the point is just to connect with another human being and feel less like one is alone as one goes through the world. So sometimes, it's wiser to be silly and play dumb. Maybe that's closer to the meaning of our social lives. But it amplifies universal human issues with authenticity for an introverted intuitive perceiver. And that shouldn't be treated too reductively. It has very little to do with intelligence.

 

[Neckbeard]

Most people will be cool with you as long as you don't use words that nobody uses and talk for a needlessly long period of time about details that aren't necessary. And it's probably also a good idea to not be condescending. They can probably do things that you can't too, so it makes no sense to feel superior about your int or wis stat.

 

[Jennywocky]

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

Really, I'm not sure what the argument in the thread is about; it seems like people dealing in extremes. You don't have to be act super-nice, and you don't have to act super-smartass either. (I would like to say "Just act normal," but apparently that is not a fixed term.)

There's a difference between practical smarts and book smarts, and EVERY person in some way usually has to temper/channel certain parts of themselves as part of communicating effectively with others. Is the goal showing everyone else how smart you are, or is the goal of interacting with others to actually communicate, share information, share experiences, swap resources, etc?

Basically I find:

1. When I run across people who I can communicate with, without having to change anything about my delivery... cool. Those people are now part of a select group of friends.

2. When other people might just have other interests / might not easily understand what I'm saying, well okay, find a way to meet them in the middle and relate to them as people regardless. Might not be a relationship I will focus a lot of energy on, but I can learn something and help them learn something, and we can still have a good time in the interaction.

3. When others have little in common with me and/or I have to change too much to accommodate them... well, no need to piss them off. So just keep the conversation cordial to the degree of benefit, and otherwise move on and invest more time/energy elsewhere.

We're all different regardless. There's only ever going to be a small core group who I *really* relate too, a larger group that is still effective but that aren't my closest friends, and then a number of other people who I just won't talk to much because we're too different. (And maybe a small group who ticks me off, but that's reality too.)

I guess I don't get what the issue is, or maybe it's that I see the ability to be flexible and communicate with others who are different to a certain degree to be part of using one's intelligence, versus some raw IQ score / book knowledge. It's practical knowledge you're actually using, to overcome obstacles. Book knowledge is appealing to me, in the privacy of my own head, but problem-solving knowledge/experience is also fulfilling in its own way and more useful when you're engaging the external world. Make those brains work for you.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

I'm disappointed that this turned into sort of a hateful thread about people assuming that the OP is about people who think that they are more _____ than others (although I guess it may have started to evolve into that in the posts that followed. But I think that this may have been a self-fulfilling prophecy more than anything). I believe that all throughout history, staying quiet and keeping one's cards close to one's chest have been relevant to survival.

"Playing dumb," or perhaps "acting drunk" are probably unfortunate choices of words which describe this staying quiet in order to preserve oneself. Introverts just aren't going to be able to say what's on their mind very often. It costs too much energy, but also it is dangerous to throw out too many controversial ideas in an analytical format if one is not in a setting or before an audience that will be open to that. There are too many kinds of people in the world who do just want to look good in front of people at any cost. But we do feel uneasy about others' possibly having more knowledge than us if this knowledge doesn't fit our perception of what each others' status is. Slaves often couldn't appear to know too much (couldn't let others know they could read), women were sometimes considered "manly" or unmarriageable if they read too much or were educated, and I often overhear or directly talk with people who refer to women with careers in engineering or other STEM fields as odd, unusual, or weird. But in contrast, people light up when I tell them I do theatre or art or music. This is a gender thing, but I also believe that this is connected with power, and the language people use and their reasons for wanting to use it.

Ti and its sharpness, its preference for specificity in word choice, its love of jargon and the risk that someone's emotional state may be ignored is extremely off-putting to many. This may be instinctive, or related to misreading patterns from the past. Remaining quiet, passive or silly helps the introvert to rebuild energy and discharge it in a venue that may be more appropriate than, for example, my being approached by an elderly couple on the bus who ask me, "Wouldn't you rather look out the window? Cell phones are an addiction. Don't you get sick looking at that all the time?" It's a lot more energy-efficient for me to just smile and nod, sensing that they might mainly be expressing how they caught up in a high state of emotional arousal at reuniting with each other and going on a day trip together, and to put away my phone, than it is to express in full Ti style that I believe we are moving into an era in which we are becoming cyborgs, and that even now, we can't live our lives without a minimum of technology- like smart phones. All our jobs and educations hinge on the ability to intertwine ourselves smoothly with current technology. Maybe I could learn something cool from hearing their response, but I don't think they are in Ti mode, so it's pointless. I believe I'd squish their sense of ephemeral wonder if I engaged my main function. So I think it's often mean or a little bit selfish to say exactly what one is thinking, especially when that is generally not the reason why most people want to talk with each other or interact.

I generally want to interact in order to acquire new information (Ne), or exchange fun or new and novel information, but people don't often seem to understand that motivation unless it is couched in a lot of eye blinking or submissive curiosity and feeliness. I'd much rather just download the information out of them, but that is too much Ti Ne to operate in a fair, effective way in the real world. This is still about status and the flow of power, but Ti is also hard to digest unless enough care is taken to communicate it clearly for a broad audience. Maybe it costs too much to decode for some. And also, it's extremely hard to know when you yourself are wrong since it's easy to misinterpret patterns from the past and project them inaccurately into the present. Maybe your ideas are terrible, or communicated poorly, not misunderstood. But being misunderstood when you end up being right creates a lot of uncertainty in these matters.

Knowledge is still an emotional, highly charged power thing at times. Not all the time, certainly, but definitely sometimes, and it's really helpful to notice when the discussion becomes less an exchange of ideas and more of a power struggle. Sometimes, we just have to laugh at the boss's joke, we have to smile and nod while the crazy homeless person talks about how he stabbed someone 10 years ago, we have to let go of how we question whether someone just said something accurate in order to let them finish and get their points across. And most of the time, it seems like the point is just to connect with another human being and feel less like one is alone as one goes through the world. So sometimes, it's wiser to be silly and play dumb. Maybe that's closer to the meaning of our social lives. But it amplifies universal human issues with authenticity for an introverted intuitive perceiver. And that shouldn't be treated too reductively. It has very little to do with intelligence.

These are some splendid, splendid & sublime points.

And...I think the flaming on this thread of the OP (if indeed it has occurred) is fascinatingly ironic. Don't know the MBTIs of those who have attempted to make the topic personal but its very un-INTP like in my experience. There are other reasons why its fascinating, e.g. wasn't the main intention of the OP to point out how to avoid engaging this reaction in the well-stocked peanut gallery of the idiocracy? FWIW I'm confident the OP has very thick skin on the interwebs. No worries. The capacity to ignore is a wonderful resource.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i now agree with those who are right

 

[Black Rose]

i now agree with those who are right

what was it like when you disagreed with them