Having to carry others intellectually.

[Words]

So there are two types of "socio-intellectual relationships." Socio-intellectual relationship is not a formal construct, so you won't be able to search for the term. Socio-intellectual relationship, obviously by name, is about the relationship of a person with another person thematized in such a way that the point of the relationship is for "intellectual prosperity"---you may imagine your own notion of "intellectual prosperity"

The two types is basically you being "carried" and you "carrying" others. I hate having to carry others, I prefer being "carried." There's no benefit at all in having to carry others. It immediately turns into an authoritative relationship where you have to dictate everything to them, and no one questions your statements at all. You're responsible for developing their mental abilities, and that takes a lot of work and boredom. They're like leeches. I prefer me leeching instead. (Btw, I've been carried by some members here for the past few years, so thank you, it was nice leeching off of you...wherever you are now. )

How about you? Which do you prefer? To carry or be carried?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I disagree. The act of carrying another is an investment; an exercise with the same goal as Socratic rhetoric: to accomplish something. You also describe an authoritative relationship based on ascribed authority as opposed to achieved authority. Relationships rooted in achieved authority naturally involve mutual dialogue and appreciation of perspective. This means that at the very least, carrying another demonstrates one's knowledge and allows the carryee to recognize one's achieved authority, giving the carrier a follower and a niche.

I carry or latch on based mostly on utilitarian and/or collective ideals (synergy, collective intentionality, etc). I carry those who can somehow return the favor.

 

[Words]

I disagree. The act of carrying another is an investment; an exercise with the same goal as Socratic rhetoric: to accomplish something. You also describe an authoritative relationship based on ascribed authority as opposed to achieved authority. Relationships rooted in achieved authority naturally involve mutual dialogue and appreciation of perspective. This means that at the very least, carrying another demonstrates one's knowledge and allows the carryee to recognize one's achieved authority, giving the carrier a follower and a niche.

Thank you for the introduction to achieved vs. ascribed authority. But how does carrying benefit the carrier intellectually? I personally think followers and niches are useless baggage.

I carry or latch on based mostly on utilitarian and/or collective ideals (synergy, collective intentionality, etc). I carry those who can somehow return the favor.

So do you prefer to carry or be carried? or do you prefer equals(if ever they exist)?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Thank you for the introduction to achieved vs. ascribed authority. But how does carrying benefit the carrier intellectually? I personally think followers and niches are useless baggage.



So do you prefer to carry or be carried? or do you prefer equals(if ever they exist)?

The first thing that comes to mind are the questions asked and associated stimulation. No carrier knows everything and the right questions lead both to learn (if the carrier cares about his/her reputation, that is). It also serves as a means for the carrier to identify and assess the ability of potential partners. How quickly does a given leech pick up on the material? How easily can they pass it on to others (which reduces your burden)? How do they apply what they're learning (e.g. are they taking something from biology and applying it to economics)?

As for niches and followers... Knowledge functions like currency and energy in that it can be exchanged for other goods or services (other knowledge, a teaching salary, free labor, social capital, etc). Followers, in a sense, are indebted to you, and an achieved niche gives you an identifiable label for others to know what you can do for them, which attracts additional followers. If you've adequately assessed your followers you can begin to exercise the debt they owe and assign them to various roles that allow them to "repay" their debt. What can they do for you? You can build your own system/machine, but out of people instead of metal parts. Over the past year alone I've gotten 400+ hours of field work, several dozen baked goods, ~2 dozen free pizzas, a couple hundred bucks, and positive evaluation reviews just by exercising this social capital.


I prefer a positive feedback loop, a la Watson and Crick. Call me a mutualist.

The ENTP/ISFJ relationship thing interests me as well. I could live with someone predisposed to traditional values like running a household and organizing things.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Applicable:

Without group collective action, few things can be achieved. The apparently widespread idea that INTPs must inevitably be isolated geniuses is repulsive and flawed. Rationalising selfish individualism due to introversion and social-emotional difficulties is a significant logical misstep for people so keen on considering themselves intelligent, seemingly more an excuse to avoid truly understanding and dealing with other people. Incapacity to engage others constructively and realise the necessity and utility of human collectives is a gigantic wall that so-called INTPs repeatedly crash into, and also one of the main causes of failure for reactive social movements that lack a clear long term political program.

 

[Hadoblado]

THD (and Kuu by proxy) is all over this like kawaii on rice. I think we could all afford to leech a little off him.

I inevitably gravitate towards people that can contribute at a similar intellectual level. If the difference in capacity is too large it's a waste of both people's time.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

THD (and Kuu by proxy) is all over this like kawaii on rice. I think we could all afford to leech a little off him.

Agreed. Let's start plotting (via PM).

I'm that "quick unique solution" kind of guy who lacks standard morals. Someone get me a target.

 

[Duxwing]

I like both. Carrying someone lets you bring the fruits of your intellectual labor to someone else: to raise them up from ignorance to knowledge, or, in the cases of those unacquainted with the finer points of argument and rhetoric, to help them hone their abilities. Besides feeling so good (watching growth is endearing ) you can also achieve memetic immortality if you've discovered something of importance, and your bond with your student can be enjoyable in itself. If they're especially astute, then they might point out holes in your reasoning and lead you to develop your theory differently. Put these students' names on the theory afterward: they might not get another chance at the history books.

As for being carried, the onrush of knowledge and understanding is wonderful, as can be the assistance in reasoning. Learning about an entirely new field or sharpening a brand new skill with an old hand to guide you along the way is also much easier than doing so yourself. Also, if your carrier likes you, then you can count on their help during intellectual disputes. The assistance of an expert can be invaluable.

-Duxwing

 

[Words]

If the difference in capacity is too large it's a waste of both people's time.

Exactly. it's a waste.

 

[Duxwing]

Exactly. it's a waste.

But that assumes that the gap is too great in all cases. Pardon my asking, but you seem rather terse and bitter about "carrying;" have you had a bad experience with it?

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

To carry or be carried? Do we care?

To be carried or to carry are extremes. They are not the rule. The rule is we interact with people. Martin Buber called it, "I-thou." I take that from him. He carries me with this wonderful idea.

Not everyone is a teacher. If you teach something, are you are carrier? Maybe. But one must look at the carried! How were they not reached? What is it I lack I could not reach them? This is something they can teach me. For sure.

If I follow someone, am I carried? Do I think I'm learning from them? No doubt it feels like it. But what do I pick up? They are not me. See this thread: What makes you any different?

If I'm carried by someone different from me when I imagine they are like me, I will pick up things that don't belong. Then am I entitled to feel betrayed because they didn't carry me? I say no.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Carrying someone else socially is worse than doing it intellectually i tell you

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Exactly. it's a waste.

What would the queen ant do without workers?

Carrying someone else socially is worse than doing it intellectually i tell you

Interesting. Can you expand on this?

 

[Etheri]

I think it's always mutual to me, to help while being helped and this for two reasons. First is the diffrence of interest, there's always things other people do better than you. But then there's also the fact that it's impossible to truly carry someone. We have some kind of teacher / pupil thing where first years get older students to guide them through their first year. I've spent a considerable amount of time teaching maths and chemistry to one of them, and while I'd typically 'carry' this to put it in your terms, I'd also learn a LOT in the process. A critical mind raises questions while building their understanding. I've honestly learned to understand certain subjects much better through teaching them than by being taught.

This thread is the first proper discussion i've seen in a while. Yay!

 

[PhoenixRising]

I think it's always mutual to me, to help while being helped and this for two reasons. First is the diffrence of interest, there's always things other people do better than you. But then there's also the fact that it's impossible to truly carry someone. We have some kind of teacher / pupil thing where first years get older students to guide them through their first year. I've spent a considerable amount of time teaching maths and chemistry to one of them, and while I'd typically 'carry' this to put it in your terms, I'd also learn a LOT in the process. A critical mind raises questions while building their understanding. I've honestly learned to understand certain subjects much better through teaching them than by being taught.

^ this.

I agree, a truly beneficial socio-intellectual relationship is one in which both people carry each other. Without somewhat equal contribution from both individuals, the relationship would become one-sided and neither person could learn as m uch. Dynamic growth and movement in any interaction is caused by both people being 'sparked' by each other and building upon their knowledge as a collaborative endeavor.

imo, if only one person is learning/growing in an interaction, then it is an unhealthy one. Especially if it lasts for a long time..

 

[Words]

But that assumes that the gap is too great in all cases.

Good point. How do you know if the the gap is "too great"? How can you tell? What's "too great'?

Pardon my asking, but you seem rather terse and bitter about "carrying;" have you had a bad experience with it?

-Duxwing

Yeah~ I have this discussion group and I'm thinking... It's a waste of time to hang out with them when I could be focusing on my own growth. But I don't have a lot of alternatives. My brain wants socialization.

To be carried or to carry are extremes. They are not the rule. The rule is we interact with people. Martin Buber called it, "I-thou." I take that from him. He carries me with this wonderful idea.

Not everyone is a teacher. If you teach something, are you are carrier? Maybe. But one must look at the carried! How were they not reached? What is it I lack I could not reach them? This is something they can teach me. For sure.

If I follow someone, am I carried? Do I think I'm learning from them? No doubt it feels like it. But what do I pick up? They are not me. See this thread: What makes you any different?

If I'm carried by someone different from me when I imagine they are like me, I will pick up things that don't belong. Then am I entitled to feel betrayed because they didn't carry me? I say no.

Maybe I'm looking at it too linearly. But still...there's a difference between certain people of "quality"(maybe in their critical thinking or something I don't know) and people who will just leach off of you.

Carrying someone else socially is worse than doing it intellectually i tell you

That's interesting.

What would the queen ant do without workers?

If I wanted workers, I wouldn't look for people to intellectualize with. I would just pay people to work for me. Or save random people from poverty and make them loyal to me.

I think it's always mutual to me, to help while being helped and this for two reasons. First is the diffrence of interest, there's always things other people do better than you. But then there's also the fact that it's impossible to truly carry someone. We have some kind of teacher / pupil thing where first years get older students to guide them through their first year. I've spent a considerable amount of time teaching maths and chemistry to one of them, and while I'd typically 'carry' this to put it in your terms, I'd also learn a LOT in the process. A critical mind raises questions while building their understanding. I've honestly learned to understand certain subjects much better through teaching them than by being taught.

yes, but by comparison you learn more when you hang out with superiors. How long do you have to wait for an excellent question you haven't thought of yourself? And would your caryee even be able to criticize your answer? you don't get a lot of good feedback.

imo, if only one person is learning/growing in an interaction, then it is an unhealthy one. Especially if it lasts for a long time..

exactly.

 

[scorpiomover]

There are actually 3.
1) Those who study for themselves, and think for themselves.
2) Those who let others study for them, trust the learners, and accept their instructions on that basis.
3) Those who let others study for them for the most part, don't trust all of the learners, and then challenge the ones they don't trust, all the time, in the presumption that if they can't catch the guy out, then the guy might be telling the truth.

I prefer to be #1.

 

[BigApplePi]

Good point. How do you know if the the gap is "too great"? How can you tell? What's "too great'?

If I may generalize and be a little crude here, distance and motion are two tools for understanding. The distance may be too great for things to work. Then the task is to recognize that and see if one can move to change things. Without change things, ugh, remain the same. An example is when peoples speak different languages. Something must be done about the chosen language.

Yeah~ I have this discussion group and I'm thinking... It's a waste of time to hang out with them when I could be focusing on my own growth. But I don't have a lot of alternatives. My brain wants socialization.

One may not have the power to change this. Still one can try to find a gentle way let this be known to the other group and come to some sort of peace. I'm not there so I wouldn't know how to do this.

Maybe I'm looking at it too linearly. But still...there's a difference between certain people of "quality"(maybe in their critical thinking or something I don't know) and people who will just leach off of you.

Elaborate. Who is "leaching" what?

Originally Posted by Cherry Cola
Carrying someone else socially is worse than doing it intellectually i tell you

That's interesting.

Social distances are not the same as intellectual ones. Is power the issue or is it content?

yes, but by comparison you learn more when you hang out with superiors. How long do you have to wait for an excellent question you haven't thought of yourself? And would your caryee even be able to criticize your answer? you don't get a lot of good feedback.

The prince of the land is clearly superior but does he understand his subjects? Somehow I'm reminded of stories where the prince puts on a disguise and travels among his subjects in an effort to discover what they really think. One must become a common man before one can rule them. Is there some truth to these stories?

imo, if only one person is learning/growing in an interaction, then it is an unhealthy one. Especially if it lasts for a long time..

I'm not convinced this is true. If I read a book, the book learns nothing yet I learn. Nothing unhealthy about that except it suffers from lack of socialization.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Interesting. Can you expand on this?

It's when you're doing a task or attending a party with someone who's social competence is far below your own causing unnecessary issues due to communication failures at work, or in the case of a party awkwardness.

I find that if a person is intellectually inferior to me I can usually explain myself to them so that they understand why and how we should do things. Trying to explain to someone how to behave is really difficult and rarely works in practice because social interaction is by definition spontaneous to a high degree.

Tis a problem for me because I absolutely abhor conflicts, I'll feel bad for ages after one and knowing that makes me kinda paranoid, in this way Fe is a double edged sword. I get along with almost anyone, and I think this is largely thanks to a decently developed Fe; however, others don't and Fe prompts me to act on their behalf to prevent conflict when I see the potential for one, and I see a ton of potential for shit that can go wrong all the time, likely because of the stupid inferior Se making the world seem scary (when I take psychedelics I have vivid hallucinations which look like the stuff of a psychological horror film, scared the fuck out of me first, but now I'm used to it). This makes me angsty and tense and unable to enjoy the moment : (

Thus I think this may be less of an issue for you INTPs so maybe I was a bit hasty with my first post.

 

[Words]

If I may generalize and be a little crude here, distance and motion are two tools for understanding. The distance may be too great for things to work. Then the task is to recognize that and see if one can move to change things. Without change things, ugh, remain the same. An example is when peoples speak different languages. Something must be done about the chosen language.

Well, No shit Pi.

One may not have the power to change this. Still one can try to find a gentle way let this be known to the other group and come to some sort of peace. I'm not there so I wouldn't know how to do this.Elaborate. Who is "leaching" what?

There's no need for peace. It's either I leave or I continue being leached off of. I don't even think I'm qualified to get leached off of.

The prince of the land is clearly superior but does he understand his subjects? Somehow I'm reminded of stories where the prince puts on a disguise and travels among his subjects in an effort to discover what they really think. One must become a common man before one can rule them. Is there some truth to these stories?

It's not difficult to understand the common man. And I'm not trying to rule anything. What are we talking about here?

I'm not convinced this is true. If I read a book, the book learns nothing yet I learn. Nothing unhealthy about that except it suffers from lack of socialization.

So basically writing a book is the same as carrying other people. Why do people usually write books? To share their knowledge? To make money?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Thus I think this may be less of an issue for you INTPs so maybe I was a bit hasty with my first post.

Nah, I get you. Social strain & stress is an interesting phenomenon (similar to atomic bonding imho) from the perspective of l'observateur.

Thanks for that.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Read Plato's Republic for examples of this. Interestingly, after a few reads, there are stories behind the stories that are interesting. Plato did some amazing work with this.

 

[Duxwing]

Good point. How do you know if the the gap is "too great"? How can you tell? What's "too great'?

One can only know the 'distance' by trying to discuss various subjects with the person or people in question and gaining an inductive understanding of their ability. In other words, and to continue the metaphor: Leap.

Yeah~ I have this discussion group and I'm thinking... It's a waste of time to hang out with them when I could be focusing on my own growth. But I don't have a lot of alternatives. My brain wants socialization.

Aw. Maybe try to organize the topics so that both they and you grow?

Maybe I'm looking at it too linearly. But still...there's a difference between certain people of "quality"(maybe in their critical thinking or something I don't know) and people who will just leach off of you.

Remember that you are a leech to your superiors just as your inferiors are leeches to you. Perhaps the answer is to find a group of equals?

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

Well, No shit Pi.

Yeah. If things get in my way I simplify.

There's no need for peace. It's either I leave or I continue being leached off of. I don't even think I'm qualified to get leached off of.

Is there a problem? Either shit or get off the pot.

It's not difficult to understand the common man. And I'm not trying to rule anything. What are we talking about here?

I dunno. Just speculating.

So basically writing a book is the same as carrying other people. Why do people usually write books? To share their knowledge? To make money?

No. Not carrying other people. Carrying oneself. One can write a book to perfect self expression and self examination. Once the book is written, now there is a means to verify all that ... not that one can't overrule the critics.
_____________

I consulted with my wife on this as she's an expert. Add:
To teach, to impress others, to make money, knowledge to impart, a story to tell, because they are compelled to create.

 

[BigApplePi]

Perhaps the answer is to find a group of equals?

-Duxwing

Dux. I think you've stumbled on the truth ... I completely overlooked that.

I'm reminded of when asked, "Who is the best person to play tennis with?"
Answer: Someone who is just a little better than you are.

Apparently it's no fun playing with an expert or someone you beat every time.

 

[Brontosaurie]

facing naïve criticism, as well as framing ideas in intuitively accessible terms, is among the most important facets of intellectual scrutiny. there's always something to gain.

 

[Duxwing]

Dux. I think you've stumbled on the truth ... I completely overlooked that.

I'm reminded of when asked, "Who is the best person to play tennis with?"
Answer: Someone who is just a little better than you are.

Apparently it's no fun playing with an expert or someone you beat every time.

The truth is like a brick on your carpet when you're stumbling in the dark.

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

The truth is like a brick on your carpet when you're stumbling in the dark.

-Duxwing

It hits you like a flying fish in the face when you misstep where your dog has done something. How long must I be an intellectual carrier Duxwing before what goes around comes around to haunt me?

 

[Duxwing]

It hits you like a flying fish in the face when you misstep where your dog has done something. How long must I be an intellectual carrier Duxwing before what goes around comes around to haunt me?

Ehh? I want to laugh with you, but I don't understand.

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

Ehh? I want to laugh with you, but I don't understand.

-Duxwing

Neither do I Dux. There are roads we cannot travel, mysteries we cannot solve and hearts frozen in space. We didn't ask to be put on this Earth yet here we are. If you want to understand Dux, consider turning to the spiritual ones. I am an outsider and remain so until and unless some one or some thing opens the right door.

 

[Duxwing]

Neither do I Dux. There are roads we cannot travel, mysteries we cannot solve and hearts frozen in space. We didn't ask to be put on this Earth yet here we are. If you want to understand Dux, consider turning to the spiritual ones. I am an outsider and remain so until and unless some one or some thing opens the right door.

I was trying to politely point out that your grammar and sytanx were bad. And spirituality is nothing more than euphoria laden guesswork. I'll stick to logic.

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

I was trying to politely point out that your grammar and sytanx were bad. And spirituality is nothing more than euphoria laden guesswork. I'll stick to logic.

-Duxwing

There is logic and then there is logic. One has to ask, "logic about what?" There is something about the theme of this thread, "Having to carry others intellectually", that does not reach the surface. When one finds oneself struggling in the dark, is it not logical to strike out wildly, crazily with the hope of reaching some light? What happens if you don't know how to swim and someone picks you up and tosses you into ten feet of water?

I thunk you for your courtesy in pointing out my bad sytanx.

 

[Words]

Remember that you are a leech to your superiors just as your inferiors are leeches to you. Perhaps the answer is to find a group of equals?

I don't care if I'm a leech to my superiors. I only care about my benefit. And leaching off of superiors is much more advantageous than working with equals. And there are some "carriers" who are fine with getting leached of I observe. I already am in the process of looking for superiors or equals but it's always either they are unavailable or nonexistent. I get stuck with low quality stuff here.

facing naïve criticism, as well as framing ideas in intuitively accessible terms, is among the most important facets of intellectual scrutiny. there's always something to gain.

You understand what I'm talking about very well. "Framing ideas in intuitively accessible terms"...hm..not sure if I care about that enough. Truth is truth for me. I look down on people who don't understand the idea as it is.

Read Plato's Republic for examples of this. Interestingly, after a few reads, there are stories behind the stories that are interesting. Plato did some amazing work with this.

I've read it years ago. Socrates likes to get leeched off of. I would find it very tiring and pointless. He tries too hard to makes things simpler.

No. Not carrying other people. Carrying oneself. One can write a book to perfect self expression and self examination. Once the book is written, now there is a means to verify all that ... not that one can't overrule the critics.
_____________

I consulted with my wife on this as she's an expert. Add:
To teach, to impress others, to make money, knowledge to impart, a story to tell, because they are compelled to create.

Verification? Creation?

 

[Duxwing]

I don't care if I'm a leech to my superiors. I only care about my benefit. And leaching off of superiors is much more advantageous than working with equals. And there are some "carriers" who are fine with getting leached of I observe. I already am in the process of looking for superiors or equals but it's always either they are unavailable or nonexistent. I get stuck with low quality stuff here.

In the grander sense, you need to work on this. Being doggedly self-centered in a social setting will drive people away. If you want the socialization that you so crave, then you need to start caring about the people with whom you socialize.

You understand what I'm talking about very well. "Framing ideas in intuitively accessible terms"...hm..not sure if I care about that enough. Truth is truth for me. I look down on people who don't understand the idea as it is.

This attitude is another problem; looking down on people less intelligent than yourself will give other people-- who may exceed your intelligence-- more reasons to stay away from you. Again, if you want to socialize, you need to stop regarding people who didn't win the intelligence lottery (and I don't mean that phrase as a euphemism: one's intelligence really is an accident of history) as somehow beneath you will make people think that you're arrogant. Also remember that if your 'superiors' took the same attitude as you do, then you'd never get to 'leech' off them just as you don't let your 'inferiors' 'leech' off you.

The key phrase to remember here is 'social': intellectual discourse isn't all about you and your needs. All those other people in that discussion group? They want something, too, and your not cooperating with them will lead their not cooperating with you. So, if only in your own self interest, act altruistically.

I've read it years ago. Socrates likes to get leeched off of. I would find it very tiring and pointless. He tries too hard to makes things simpler.

Try taking a larger view of what he was doing. Socrates knew that he was smart, and he didn't want the benefits of his intelligence to be limited to himself: think of the waste, for example, had his Socratic method never been disseminated. So he sat down and tried his hardest to help those who weren't lucky enough to have brains like his to understand the world around them.

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

Verification? Creation?

Every time you write something whether a book or a message on this thread, it is a creative process. You may like doing it or you may not. This thread gives you feedback. Everything said supports, enhances, critiques or denies what you say.

May I suggest you drop the idea of "leeching" off one another? Once the negative is identified, look for the positive, I say. Everyone shoots for an exchange. We hope it works. If is doesn't, accept it until you can find more fertile ground.
---------------------------

Later. I just read Dux's message written 43 minutes before mine. A very good one. I'd take heed. Take heed Words.

 

[Brontosaurie]

You understand what I'm talking about very well. "Framing ideas in intuitively accessible terms"...hm..not sure if I care about that enough. Truth is truth for me. I look down on people who don't understand the idea as it is.

being pedagogic is always good practice for intuition, because it forces you to attend to general principles and examine how those connect with other general principles that the recipient could be more acquainted with. this is a test of your communicative abilities. an intellectual pursuit cannot neglect communication because communication forms the basis of ideas, it is the substrate of ideas, the reason for ideas to exist. without our reliance on society for protection/maintenence, action would suffice. consciousness is an organizational social tool. uyrr, don't quote me on this though =P

also it is undeniably better for the recipient to gain understanding of a new theoretical concept than to be met with arrogance. win-win!

the solipsist INTP outlook could use some more Ne, don't you think?

 

[SpaceYeti]

There is logic and then there is logic. One has to ask, "logic about what?" There is something about the theme of this thread, "Having to carry others intellectually", that does not reach the surface. When one finds oneself struggling in the dark, is it not logical to strike out wildly, crazily with the hope of reaching some light? What happens if you don't know how to swim and someone picks you up and tosses you into ten feet of water?

I thunk you for your courtesy in pointing out my bad sytanx.

Bad analogy. You have no need to presume there are spirits, souls, gods, or any of that other stuff. You won't drown without those beliefs.

 

[SpaceYeti]

This attitude is another problem; looking down on people less intelligent than yourself

The poroblem here is that they're not necessarily less intelligent, they simply don't understand a thing that you do. Different people have different interests and, thus, know about different things. Just because they're not interested in or spent as much time with a subject as you have, it doesn't mean you have a superior intellect.

 

[Duxwing]

The poroblem here is that they're not necessarily less intelligent, they simply don't understand a thing that you do. Different people have different interests and, thus, know about different things. Just because they're not interested in or spent as much time with a subject as you have, it doesn't mean you have a superior intellect.

Words never mentioned this possibility. @Words, is the problem with intellect, or interest?

-Duxwing

 

[Words]

In the grander sense, you need to work on this. Being doggedly self-centered in a social setting will drive people away. If you want the socialization that you so crave, then you need to start caring about the people with whom you socialize.

No problems there. I don't think it take a lot to understand that you have to be nice to people to get what you want. I'm not actually "doggedly" self-centered, I'm simply trying to make it less confusing. I'm not going to leech off of people who are burdened by me leeching, but the very point of me leeching is truly for myself. The world is a minefield, and I'm trying to get to where I want to go without letting any of those mines explode.

This attitude is another problem; looking down on people less intelligent than yourself will give other people-- who may exceed your intelligence-- more reasons to stay away from you. Again, if you want to socialize, you need to stop regarding people who didn't win the intelligence lottery (and I don't mean that phrase as a euphemism: one's intelligence really is an accident of history) as somehow beneath you will make people think that you're arrogant. Also remember that if your 'superiors' took the same attitude as you do, then you'd never get to 'leech' off them just as you don't let your 'inferiors' 'leech' off you.

I don't outwardly display my arrogance. Sometimes it goes out, most times it's not there. I have my values and I judge everything based on these values, but I know everyone else have their own values.

The key phrase to remember here is 'social': intellectual discourse isn't all about you and your needs. All those other people in that discussion group? They want something, too, and your not cooperating with them will lead their not cooperating with you. So, if only in your own self interest, act altruistically.

I didn't mean that it's all about me. The problem is I barely get anything. Screw collective benefit when one member is doing all the work and barely getting anything in return. Appreciate the counter-arguments and counter-points written in this thread though.

Try taking a larger view of what he was doing. Socrates knew that he was smart, and he didn't want the benefits of his intelligence to be limited to himself: think of the waste, for example, had his Socratic method never been disseminated. So he sat down and tried his hardest to help those who weren't lucky enough to have brains like his to understand the world around them.

The "you getting-leached off relationship" is a relationship that's beneficial only in terms of application. Never beneficial for your self-development. Only in application. And this is precisely what Socrates was doing. Applying.

Every time you write something whether a book or a message on this thread, it is a creative process. You may like doing it or you may not. This thread gives you feedback. Everything said supports, enhances, critiques or denies what you say.

May I suggest you drop the idea of "leeching" off one another? Once the negative is identified, look for the positive, I say. Everyone shoots for an exchange. We hope it works. If is doesn't, accept it until you can find more fertile ground.

What is inaccurate about the term "leech"? It's neither a positive nor a negative. It simply is.

The poroblem here is that they're not necessarily less intelligent, they simply don't understand a thing that you do. Different people have different interests and, thus, know about different things. Just because they're not interested in or spent as much time with a subject as you have, it doesn't mean you have a superior intellect.

There's a difference between knowing things and knowing how to know things. Many people know things. Not many know how to know things.

 

[Words]

Words never mentioned this possibility. @Words, is the problem with intellect, or interest?

-Duxwing

Spaceyeti misunderstood.

But I side with the idea that quality thinking or "intelligence", or whatever it is, is not a lottery. It is primarily learned. Therefore, it is heavily affected by interest. You will excel at things you're interested in. But then, interest is heavily affected by level of understanding which, in turn, is a product of intellect.

 

[SpaceYeti]

There's a difference between knowing things and knowing how to know things. Many people know things. Not many know how to know things.

Raw intellect is more like the raw potential to learn/the speed at which a person can learn/the efficiency with which they think. Knowing how to know things I would consider like logic and reason, a skill which can be learned.

Spaceyeti misunderstood.

But I side with the idea that quality thinking or "intelligence", or whatever it is, is not a lottery. It is primarily learned. Therefore, it is heavily affected by interest. You will excel at things you're interested in. But then, interest is heavily affected by level of understanding which, in turn, is a product of intellect.

I would place it at a loose connection if any. It's difficult to be interested in something you don't understand, but not understanding it can also be seen as a challenge to overcome and, in turn, fun. I'd say personality type has more to do with interests than raw intelligence.

 

[Duxwing]

Raw intellect is more like the raw potential to learn/the speed at which a person can learn/the efficiency with which they think. Knowing how to know things I would consider like logic and reason, a skill which can be learned.



I would place it at a loose connection if any. It's difficult to be interested in something you don't understand, but not understanding it can also be seen as a challenge to overcome and, in turn, fun. I'd say personality type has more to do with interests than raw intelligence.

Which raises the question: What types are the partners? If I were among INFJ's and ESFP's for my discussion group, then I think that I'd have a fit if not a figurative 'meltdown'.

-Duxwing

 

[Hadoblado]

So there are two types of "socio-intellectual relationships." ... The two types is basically you being "carried" and you "carrying" others. I hate having to carry others, I prefer being "carried." There's no benefit at all in having to carry others.

It seems to me that this thread and the controversy within can be traced back to this false dichotomy. Although my model would also has two socio-intellectual relationships, they are different to those averred by Words. My first category would be those suggested by Words, but from the third person. There is not two relationships in this bracket (me leeching off them, and them leeching off me), but one: a person leeching off another. This is rarely as good as the second type.

In the second type of relationship the information flows both ways, this is largely more efficient than the first. It is also a much better social platform.

In a type one relationship there is less thought or skepticism, as the goal is to passively take on board information without offering opinion. The burden is also unjustly distributed, as well as this nature of the relationship being innately hierarchical. New thought does not spring from this interaction, it is the proliferation of stale information.

Type two relationships bring people together as equal human beings. There is no burden of transference, information is voluntarily exchanged for mutual benefit. For NT's, I suspect this relationship is often the foundation of friendship.

The emphasis on intelligence in this thread seems misplaced. The 'raw intelligence' people refer to would rarely be a large factor in whether you can learn something from someone. For a superficial and short lived socio-intellectual transfer, you would probably need a good 30-40 IQ lead on them at least, before they have nothing to say that would you can learn. Regardless of how much less capable they are, they have an entire life time of observation to offer. Without respecting their cognitive faculties, surely you can respect their utility as a 'scouting drone'. For long term transfers, I agree that their intelligence would play a large part in whether they are able to continue to contribute.

I feel as if I had a point to get across, but now I have forgotten it

 

[Duxwing]

It seems to me that this thread and the controversy within can be traced back to this false dichotomy. Although my model would also has two socio-intellectual relationships, they are different to those averred by Words. My first category would be those suggested by Words, but from the third person. There is not two relationships in this bracket (me leeching off them, and them leeching off me), but one: a person leeching off another. This is rarely as good as the second type.

In the second type of relationship the information flows both ways, this is largely more efficient than the first. It is also a much better social platform.

In a type one relationship there is less thought or skepticism, as the goal is to passively take on board information without offering opinion. The burden is also unjustly distributed, as well as this nature of the relationship being innately hierarchical. New thought does not spring from this interaction, it is the proliferation of stale information.

Type two relationships bring people together as equal human beings. There is no burden of transference, information is voluntarily exchanged for mutual benefit. For NT's, I suspect this relationship is often the foundation of friendship.

The emphasis on intelligence in this thread seems misplaced. The 'raw intelligence' people refer to would rarely be a large factor in whether you can learn something from someone. For a superficial and short lived socio-intellectual transfer, you would probably need a good 30-40 IQ lead on them at least, before they have nothing to say that would you can learn. Regardless of how much less capable they are, they have an entire life time of observation to offer. Without respecting their cognitive faculties, surely you can respect their utility as a 'scouting drone'. For long term transfers, I agree that their intelligence would play a large part in whether they are able to continue to contribute.

I feel as if I had a point to get across, but now I have forgotten it

Your model is quite better, hadoblado. Thanks!

And if you want to demonstrate a specific overall point, then state your hypothesis in an enunciation (a fancy way of saying "write your intended point at the beginning of your post") and then proceed to reason from your givens. If your hypothesis and the ultimate conclusion of your reasoning do not match, then delete your hypothesis, replace it with the ultimate conclusion of your reasoning, and adjust your other beliefs and assertions accordingly. Once you've replaced your hypothesis with your conclusion, or if both statements were identical the first place, put QED in front of your ultimate conclusion and post your argument. Formal? Yes. Somewhat tiresome? Certainly. But the method that I've described is a good way to remember your point whilst writing longer posts.

-Duxwing

 

[Hadoblado]

This is well worded advice, thank you.

While I may not use it on the forum (I prefer a more casual approach), I may very well put it to work in academia, as staying on point is my largest weakness as a student.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Which raises the question: What types are the partners? If I were among INFJ's and ESFP's for my discussion group, then I think that I'd have a fit if not a figurative 'meltdown'.

-Duxwing

I get along really well with pretty much anyone, but my best of good friends tend to be INTX. That's pretty much the limits of my input on that.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The poroblem here is that they're not necessarily less intelligent, they simply don't understand a thing that you do. Different people have different interests and, thus, know about different things. Just because they're not interested in or spent as much time with a subject as you have, it doesn't mean you have a superior intellect.

This is a good point.

There are also different intelligences. People studying to become engineers or phycisists will outperform people studying philosophy on a classic visual IQ test. However, the latter win easily when IQ is measured by linguistical means.

Overall I think IQ matters much less after a certain treshold, say 120. If you've got a 120 you can understand most things that you put your mind to and you needn't feel lost in discussion.

Furthermore, I agree completely with Brontosaurie, don't be a socially isolated elitist, not feeding your Ne will make you dumber in the end.

Duxwing: What do you mean you'd throw a fit if you were in a group with an INFJ and ESFP? The INFJ isn't even particularly dumber than you statistically speaking and besides this whole "uuuh this type sux dick I can't stand people who are this type" is childish and stupid, people are never just their types, rather, the types are an abstract concept that you pidgeonhole people into.

As it happens I also hate having to work in groups when studying, most often it just complicates things and the tasks you are given tend to be on to basic a level.

At my work I really appreciate being able to get help from a wide variety of types including an ESFP, ENFJ, ISTJ among others. Each of them outperform me on certain things.

 

[Duxwing]

This is a good point.

There are also different intelligences. People studying to become engineers or phycisists will outperform people studying philosophy on a classic visual IQ test. However, the latter win easily when IQ is measured by linguistical means.

Overall I think IQ matters much less after a certain treshold, say 120. If you've got a 120 you can understand most things that you put your mind to and you needn't feel lost in discussion.

Furthermore, I agree completely with Brontosaurie, don't be a socially isolated elitist, not feeding your Ne will make you dumber in the end.

Duxwing: What do you mean you'd throw a fit if you were in a group with an INFJ and ESFP? The INFJ isn't even particularly dumber than you statistically speaking and besides this whole "uuuh this type sux dick I can't stand people who are this type" is childish and stupid, people are never just their types, rather, the types are an abstract concept that you pidgeonhole people into.

I never said that they'd be dumber. I said that I'd throw a fit. And I'd throw it because, assuming that the INFJ and ESFP are in my age group (16) we'd have few interests in common because our dominant functions would all be different and our auxiliary functions, the one source of common ground between the INFJ and me, would be almost entirely undeveloped (my Ne is just coming in). And if you'd have looked at the post to which I was replying, then you'd have noticed that shared interests were what SpaceYeti and I were discussing.

As it happens I also hate having to work in groups when studying, most often it just complicates things and the tasks you are given tend to be on to basic a level.

At my work I really appreciate being able to get help from a wide variety of types including an ESFP, ENFJ, ISTJ among others. Each of them outperform me on certain things.

Right, but you're likely older than I am. In my age group, or at least in my cohort of peers, Sensors, iNtuitives, Thinkers, and Feelers are that and little else. Without having been friends with them for years, we just care about wildly different things.

-Duxwing

 

[Etheri]

I never said that they'd be dumber. I said that I'd throw a fit. And I'd throw it because, assuming that the INFJ and ESFP are in my age group (16) we'd have few interests in common because our dominant functions would all be different and our auxiliary functions
-Duxwing

Deal with it, because it barely depends on age. Sure, people get more mature, but that includes INTPs. They're not suddenly about to become thinkers. You'll keep most of your interests, and they'll keep most of theirs. It doesn't suddenly change, and people don't really get more open minded either.

I don't think time changes the world as fast as it changes my perception. Most of my friends have little in common to me. I admit it bothers me, but that doesn't mean they don't hold value. In fact, they're truly valuable and worth the time I spend on them, as long as I know not to expect any insights that aren't class-related.

@Words I've read and lurked. I promise i'll reply to the rest of the thread, I just haven't found the time (or rather, haven't been in the mood...) to read and think it all through. I don't know when intpf ended up going from a procrastination activity, to an activity I constantly reschedule .