Striving to be a polymath->people think you are stealing their identity

[Turnevies]

I like to acquire knowledge and competence in pretty much everything when I have the opportunity. I even believe this is some kind of moral duty, as becoming less stupid allows you to solve world's problems better and thus contribute to a better world.

And I would like to see this as a general rule of course, that people keep learning and become more allround.

Unfortunately, most people seem to have one or two things they are moderately good at, and are satisfied by that. This could be some pity by itself, but what I can find really annoying is that you should avoid being good in 'their' subjects, because otherwise they will feel treatened for losing their fragile sense of importance.

Do you recognize this issue? How do you handle it?
Burying polymath ambitions entirely and accept your succes is bounded by other people's feelings?
Downplaying your skills and get a lower place in social hierarchy than you deserve?
Not caring about these people and becoming an outcast?

Note that it is not my ambition to be a super-narcistic self-proclaimed genius or so. I acknowledge there are many people smarter than me, who likely know this frustration even more. And yes, this is a 1st world problem and I don't like to complain about my little feelings in general, which are obviously insignificant to what people in Syria experience.

 

[Reluctantly]

Just don't make people look bad and you can do whatever you want? That's all they care about anyway.

 

[reloaded]

Secretly acquire all the knowledge and keep your mouth shut. I have this problem too. I annoyed many people back in school because lessons always end up as discussions between the teacher and I, we'll end up debating or discussing about politics, philosophy, and other subjects that aren't very relevant. Like for physics, we can discuss about hawking and Einstein and somehow lead to philosophy. Of course, most teachers shut me up with "you don't need to know." I also always have the answer and answered whatever questions posed. I wasn't really trying to steal the limelight. 1) I wanted to verify if my answers were correct. 2) Everyone was quiet. No one was answering. So I took it upon myself.

Many kids take my notes without asking. I usually snatch back and ask what they want. If they say they want to borrow, I reject. I don't think they will comprehend what I'm writing. I don't blindly copy whatever the teachers say. I use the teacher's words as a sounding board to form my own conclusions. My handwriting is atrocious. I don't write in logical sequence at all (when I read, I'll recall how I got to my conclusion step by step). So, outsiders can't understand what I write. Why the hell should I lend it to them anyway? When kids I think are good ask me for help, I'll usually just tell them what's hampering them and some changes they could consider. Usually, their mindsets are what hampers them. For example, this girl who claimed she couldn't write lit essays at all. But the thing is she's too afraid of forming the "wrong conclusions". So blah blah blah I explained to her... you get the gist.

There were a few people in some classes who felt that I was "stealing their identity" too. I transferred over. They were initially the smartest in class and then I came and didn't shut up.

So, yes, I recognize this issue. I try to solve it by resisting the urge to share my knowledge or the fact that I know about certain things. But I won't stop learning by myself.

 

[AndyC]

Yeah I know what you mean. When I started doing well at math in school, one of my friends started to feel threatened and ended up making fun of me for my, I guess, intellectual interests. Fortunately people have the ability to mature and I wasn't in his class the following year. I procrastinate too much to excel at what I do significantly, and I doubt anyone I know shares similar interests to me so I'm good. My crappy ability to communicate ideas and habit to over or under analyse things prevented me from starting debates (or maybe I'm just not that smart) with my teachers and other people. I'm quite confident in my ability to follow a sequence of logical reasoning, so I don't usually have the need to confirm this via discussion. I normally read up on whatever it is I'm thinking about as an alternative. I'm basing a lot of my reply off reloaded if that wasn't clear.
I'm getting better at holding discussion now, I am able to find areas in which I'm looking for new ideas, and guide the conversation towards that and depending on my perception of their ability to understand and keep up with me, I may make things more abstract. But like I said before, my interests are different so I'm not sure if this method of discussion will avoid intimidating others.
The arrogance is present in your idea of a 'moral duty', because it entails the idea that you are more valuable to society than others because of your ability to fulfil your duty at a higher standard. People can easily sense this arrogance, so do try to avoid any displays of such, if any. If that isn't enough, I suggest acting as a teacher yourself, a catalyst for ideas and such, then those who continue to despise you are not justified in their response and are none of your business.
This is the role I normally take when in my expertise and it has yet to fail me, although I do admit I still have narcissistic tendencies towards my own capabilities.
In the end, just weigh out the pros and cons of your situations to determine which is best for society, if not society then who the hell cares, do whatever you want.

 

[Gizmo]

I recently was doing a bunch of research online about autism and got a little sidetracked.. Ended up opening a bunch of articles on the difference of our modern concept of intelligence and the idea of specialization. One psychologist wrote that our modern concept has become a bit of a glorification of the "monopath" as he called it. The people who are able to support one idea, and capable of being very good at one thing.
In contrast, the idea of the "Polymath" became very popular during the renaissance, when the common perpective was that "a man can do all things if he will". The idea was that intellect should be well rounded, and specialization should come after, which is why the brainy giants of the time were so brilliant at so many things.


So maybe someone just needs to make a time machine for all of us so we can get back to when we belong... just as long as we get back before the Plague strikes...

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

If you don't go out of your way to destroy their self-image by exhaustively proving your superiority in their field of expertise, I don't see how you'd be worried about normal people becoming disturbed by your "genius".

Really, really convoluted example, how many situations of this kind have you encountered?

 

[TheManBeyond]

there will always be people who point out your defeats and overlook your victories.
what u need to do is keep showing them the way they cannot see for themselves.

 

[Turnevies]

Thanks for your responses. There used to be a time when I had too much 'nice guy' behaviour, and just kept getting dissapointed and frustrated by other people not behaving as a Saint would do (I didn't either, but at least I told myself I was doing as one should). Then, I learned to become more assertive and that everyone must just take care of his own problems instead of trying to feel morally enlightened. But this made me feel too cold and nihilistic. So the track I've got on now, where I can feel to be a good person without being weak, is more trying to steer people to what I consider ethical and this is admittedly kinda paternalistic behaviour of me. So yes, I understand some people may find I can come over as arrogant I've even noticed that since I started working and need to get things done, my behaviour sometimes started to shift more towards INTJ.

With my wording 'polymath', I didn't meen intellectually only, as da Vinci in the Renaissance. I also want to extend this to other aspects of life with e.g. Feynman as an extraordinary example: not only was he a brilliant scientist and very pedagogical towards students, he also hung around often in nightclubs hitting on women, played bongo drums, learned to unlock safes, learned random languages and about Mayan culture. And charismatically.

How many situations as I described have I really encountered? Well, I don't know. It's more of a general feeling, which is justified by Ne>Si

 

[QuickTwist]

If you don't go out of your way to destroy their self-image by exhaustively proving your superiority in their field of expertise, I don't see how you'd be worried about normal people becoming disturbed by your "genius".

Really, really convoluted example, how many situations of this kind have you encountered?

This isn't a problem if you already have the emotional self awareness to know when you are crossing the line, but a lot of intelligent people do not have that kind of intelligence. They don't have enough self awareness to know how what they are doing affects other people on an emotional level and I think that is actually the root to all these other problems here. If you can't say something smart without people ostracising you, that's a problem with you and not with the system. If the majority of people think you are weird because you are "smart" your approach to life is completely backwards. Yes, it is rare to be super smart and be normal, but there are definitely people who fit that bill. That is the biggest difficulty for brilliant people so that is what they should work on a bit in their spare time.

BTW I do have a problem with being accepted myself actually and I'm not particularly brilliant. I just know that self awareness goes a long way and that attending to relationships (which I am terrible at) is a good skill to have in your tool box. I hate having to admit that, but its a fact of life.

 

[OmoInisa]

This isn't a problem if you already have the emotional self awareness to know when you are crossing the line, but a lot of intelligent people do not have that kind of intelligence. They don't have enough self awareness to know how what they are doing affects other people on an emotional level and I think that is actually the root to all these other problems here. If you can't say something smart without people ostracising you, that's a problem with you and not with the system. If the majority of people think you are weird because you are "smart" your approach to life is completely backwards. Yes, it is rare to be super smart and be normal, but there are definitely people who fit that bill. That is the biggest difficulty for brilliant people so that is what they should work on a bit in their spare time.

BTW I do have a problem with being accepted myself actually and I'm not particularly brilliant. I just know that self awareness goes a long way and that attending to relationships (which I am terrible at) is a good skill to have in your tool box. I hate having to admit that, but its a fact of life.

Well said

 

[Turnevies]

This isn't a problem if you already have the emotional self awareness to know when you are crossing the line, but a lot of intelligent people do not have that kind of intelligence. They don't have enough self awareness to know how what they are doing affects other people on an emotional level and I think that is actually the root to all these other problems here. If you can't say something smart without people ostracising you, that's a problem with you and not with the system. If the majority of people think you are weird because you are "smart" your approach to life is completely backwards. Yes, it is rare to be super smart and be normal, but there are definitely people who fit that bill. That is the biggest difficulty for brilliant people so that is what they should work on a bit in their spare time.

BTW I do have a problem with being accepted myself actually and I'm not particularly brilliant. I just know that self awareness goes a long way and that attending to relationships (which I am terrible at) is a good skill to have in your tool box. I hate having to admit that, but its a fact of life.

You're definetely making a good point, but it is strangely intertwisted. I know people with far more natural people skills as I have. And these soft skills are also something I include in my list of 'things to be competent in', so I definetely want to master them. But this again brings me to the issue, why should I keep changing myself while others can just go on, while there are many things where they could improve in as well if they only took the effort? Furthermore, far from all people that are popular are socially perfect. At least I want to follow advice rooted in philosophy or psychology, but don't like arbitrary sj-wise standards

Now that I'm typing this, it starts sounding like this is a problem-problem I encounter. This is not the case, I'm not really feeling isolated or so, but I do notice that the subject of this topic is still some kind of minor undercurrent in parts of my life.

 

[QuickTwist]

You're definetely making a good point, but it is strangely intertwisted. I know people with far more natural people skills as I have. And these soft skills are also something I include in my list of 'things to be competent in', so I definetely want to master them. But this again brings me to the issue, why should I keep changing myself while others can just go on, while there are many things where they could improve in as well if they only took the effort? Furthermore, far from all people that are popular are socially perfect. At least I want to follow advice rooted in philosophy or psychology, but don't like arbitrary sj-wise standards

Now that I'm typing this, it starts sounding like this is a problem-problem I encounter. This is not the case, I'm not really feeling isolated or so, but I do notice that the subject of this topic is still some kind of minor undercurrent in parts of my life.

What practicality is there to measuring yourself to others? Is that something that has a better chance of making you feel happy? If so keep doing it, but I highly doubt that is the case.

 

[Turnevies]

What practicality is there to measuring yourself to others? Is that something that has a better chance of making you feel happy? If so keep doing it, but I highly doubt that is the case.

Well, I get your point of zen, but comparing oneself to others can be one of the driving forces in human progress. Out-of-context comparison: you're not going to tell a black slave or a woman who is not allowed to vote they should stop comparing themselves to others.

But anyway, maybe better to let this dialogue be for what it is, because its sort of forcing me to take firmer stance than I wanted to.

And, probably I just have to accept that you cannot get along with everyone equally .

 

[QuickTwist]

Well, I get your point of zen, but comparing oneself to others can be one of the driving forces in human progress. Out-of-context comparison: you're not going to tell a black slave or a woman who is not allowed to vote they should stop comparing themselves to others.

But anyway, maybe better to let this dialogue be for what it is, because its sort of forcing me to take firmer stance than I wanted to.

And, probably I just have to accept that you cannot get along with everyone equally .

I said measuring, not comparing. My point wasn't that you shouldn't stand up for your rights, but that when you compare your abilities to other's abilities - when you measure your worth against others - it often ends with a bruised ego and negative feelings. And I still believe that you can do your best at something without necessarily comparing yourself to others.

 

[Hadoblado]

@QT
Last time I checked IQ was correlated with emotional intelligence. If this is true, it's likely that high IQ people that are emotionally intelligent just don't stand out as much.

@Turnevies
I've gotta support QT on the comparison =/= measurement front. Comparisons to other people are intrinsically a bad bet. One milestone in development is being satisfied with ones own abilities. This usually means some sort of outcome-based assessment rather than favourable comparison. There is always someone smarter. There is always someone quicker or stronger. But in these comparisons, the purpose of skill/knowledge acquisition is lost, which is to bring about ones own ends.

I consider comparisons to be a trap. The type of thinking that holds personal growth to be ongoing and unbound by context is highly adaptive in many ways... If you're constantly learning you're far more likely to achieve a position where you can enact your intentions. The way you track your growth however, differs greatly. If you compare yourself now to yourself yesterday, this completely circumvents ego issues and biases. By comparing oneself to others, your value becomes contextually defined, and you invite a state of constant ego-sitting.

A minority who isn't allowed to vote shouldn't be allowed to vote just because everyone else can. You seem to be thinking kinda rigidly in this. How about in a healthy democracy everyone of sound mind and judgement should be allowed to vote and there's no reason a minority wouldn't meet this criteria? See how you went for the comparison thing even though it's completely irrelevant to the actual point? Comparisons are overly reliant on immediate context.

To me, it sounds like you might be socially challenged. I see so many people pointing to their greater intelligence as the reason for their problems, but in reality intelligence is basically always an advantage. Smart people earn more and are more liked on average. Your intelligence gives you social value. But somehow you're still having social difficulties, which implies that the issue is elsewhere. My housemate is very smart, and complains a lot about tall poppy syndrome. But I've seen the way he talks to people - he has a certain way of socialising that at times can be super successful, but he's so inflexible in his approach to discussion that he's unable to adjust to better communicate to different audiences. In effect, he comes across as obnoxious and elitist to most. Maybe you're similar.

Despite being relatively intelligent and blatantly contrarian, I still manage to get along with most people. I'm not particularly socially capable (ask anyone who's met me here). What am I doing that you're not?

 

[QuickTwist]

@QT
Last time I checked IQ was correlated with emotional intelligence. If this is true, it's likely that high IQ people that are emotionally intelligent just don't stand out as much.

Yes, I can see that. My only caveat is that people who are really really smart, like genius among genius, tend to be a bit odd. That doesn't necessarily mean they are socially inept, but the two more often than not go hand in hand. Take Einstein for example, that guy was just plain weird. Brilliant, but weird. Take most of the people who have contributed to humanity on a grand scale in the field of science and mathematics and there is a pretty clear pattern of this. And I understand I am kinda nitpicking quite a bit here. Most people who have an above IQ can get along perfectly well with the people around them. Still, just want to say the really really smart ones tend to have a little bit harder time with the general public.

 

[Hadoblado]

I guess? I imagine these things are romanticised though. Put a limelight on anybody and it'll amplify their personality 10fold.

What was really that weird about Einstein?

One might argue that in order to radically change or progress society, one must in some way reject the current societal trends. Otherwise you're just a capable person doing the same thing everyone else is. If that's the case, then it's not intelligence that is making these people weird (if that is in fact the case), it's that our sample is biased in favour of selecting intelligent people with demonstrably different takes than society. I don't really know much about this sort of thing though, so don't take my word for it.

Besides, if we are talking about genius among genius, is that relevant to Turnevies' problem? Guy can't even figure out he has autism (srsly just kidding though plz dont hurt me).

 

[QuickTwist]

I guess? I imagine these things are romanticised though. Put a limelight on anybody and it'll amplify their personality 10fold.

What was really that weird about Einstein?

One might argue that in order to radically change or progress society, one must in some way reject the current societal trends. Otherwise you're just a capable person doing the same thing everyone else is. If that's the case, then it's not intelligence that is making these people weird (if that is in fact the case), it's that our sample is biased in favour of selecting intelligent people with demonstrably different takes than society. I don't really know much about this sort of thing though, so don't take my word for it.

Besides, if we are talking about genius among genius, is that relevant to Turnevies' problem? Guy can't even figure out he has autism (srsly just kidding though plz dont hurt me).

Einstein had a ton of quirky things that most "normal" people didn't or did do. Two things that come to mind are that Einstein didn't wear socks, and didn't use shampoo because he didn't like the idea of having two different kinds of soap. Granted this later one is prolly what contributed to his signature hair, but I digress.

And I agree that the smart person who is weird is sometimes blown out of proportion and romanticised a bit, but it wouldn't be a thing if there wasn't some truth in it.

About social trends. This to me isn't about what it trendy, but how well one can have a new take on an old thing or have an addition or modify it in some way to be pleasantly charming in its own way. So no, I don't think its about rejecting certain social trends.

About intelligence making people weird. This one is a bit more complicated IMO. To me this is something wrapped up more in personality than how smart someone is. If a person is odd and smart, then because they likely have a different perspective than most people, their oddness is going to be accentuated. I guess it really boils down to if you think really smart people actually have a different perspective on things than people who are not super brilliant.

IDK if it relates to Turnevies or not. I can only say that he seems a bit straight forward to be someone who is in the same IQ class as the people we are talking about. Take for example that he misconstrued my point about emotional adeptness and turned it into comparing yourself to others as example. IDK, maybe he actually is super brilliant and I am not seeing it and on top of that he is really socially inept compared to his overall intelligence, but i don't think that is likely.

 

[Hadoblado]

I really don't find those things that quirky. I know a lot of people who fit both descriptors. Hippies all. Some of them don't wear socks because they don't wear shoes either. Speaking for myself, I was not raised to do either. I started wearing socks routinely when it became obvious that my shoes stank worse as a result of the unfiltered foot sweat. I started using shampoo habitually when I tried it once and it improved my self-esteem. I hope I don't sound like I'm bragging when I say I know a *lot* of people with *far* stranger quirks than that, none of them geniuses.

And I agree that the smart person who is weird is sometimes blown out of proportion and romanticised a bit, but it wouldn't be a thing if there wasn't some truth in it.

One skeptical eyebrow brazenly leaves its place above my eye and heads for orbit. This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. :P

I think it's safe to assume he's not a super-genius. Not because he's demonstrated he's not one, but because the odds don't favour any single person being a genius, let alone a genius among geniuses. I also think that the term is toxic and beyond molested: a category that serves no purpose but to facilitate appeals to authority and reduce comparative worth. Seriously, when did being a genius become not good enough? Feels like some DBZ-level powercreep.

 

[QuickTwist]

One skeptical eyebrow brazenly leaves its place above my eye and heads for orbit. This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. :P

Yeah, I get that sort of thing a lot.


The topic is getting further and further away from the central theme and I am losing interest tbqh.

 

[Turnevies]

Ok, I don't mind if this topic gets towards an and, but I cannot resist the temptation to add a few short responses/clarifications
*First of all, I am (as you have expected) indeed not a supergenius (or an ordinary genius for that matter) myself. If I were, I indeed would't hang around on this forum probably
*YOU'RE GOING TO F***ING DIE FOR INSULTING MY PSYCHIATRIC SITUATION HADO!!!
*About the comparing=/=measuring part. I must admit that I lost that bit of semantics a bit(not native english speaker, but for a super-genius that is not a valid excuse of course). Anyway, about the subsequent discussion on whether it is bad to compare oneself to others: yes, jealousy can be bad for psychological health and can push people to do dishonest things. But a healthy dose of jealousy (rather on accomplishment than on talent) drives ambition. Behaviours that are bad on small scale, can turn out to have positive consequences on a macroscopic scale. Why would such behaviour still exist from an evolutionary point of view otherwise? On the particular argumentation that voter rights should come from logic instead of jealous individuals: I totally agree, but society unfortunately doesn't work in such a logical top-down way. It is people's individual instincts all contributing small pieces towards how the big picture gets to look.
Aha, maybe I get where the confusion comes from. I was not saying I'm frustrated that other people are more popular than me, I was saying I found it reasonable for them to be expected to keep developing themselves intellectually as well.
*I also seem to remember emotional intelligence being correlated with IQ. But (apart from the discussion that EQ is not really a thing and from the statistical fluctuations) I also believe that correspondingly, higher demands are generally placed upon intelligent people, also socially. And no matter how intelligent a human is, he is still a human being. Meaning he cannot keep doing everything perfect for everyone all the time without risking burnout, has his own needs, sometimes just wants to let go of behaving as a responsible example, get drunk, be pissed at people and throw insults and objects around. And then he can become embarassed by other people being jealous at him and risks being considered a narcissist if he publically admits that he is intelligent. Others on his level that completely understand him will be scarce, that guy must feel lonely deep down, even if he hangs around people often :'( .

You guys 've never been pissed at people? You should really do it, so stress-relieving somtimes

Anyway, I mostly agree with what you guys are saying. We're in this zone of discussing a lot because nearly-agreeing.

 

[Minuend]

There are other sources of ambition than that you feel by comparing yourself to others. For instance progressing for the feel of progressing, creating to see your work alive or achieving for the sense of achieving. These don't have to have anything to do with what other people can or do. It makes yourself the obstacle to overcome.

And as Hablo say, this approach is less concerned with the ego, which in turn affect your entire personality. It affects the way you see yourself and other people, the way you see progress and the way you handle failure.

I think comparison to others is more likely to drive people into depression and apathy. I mean, in the first post you talk about people's fragile sense of self importance becoming shattered. Would that be such a thing if people didn't compare themselves to others? I think as a larger mentality in a population, the comparing yourself to others create heaps of problems, and increased tendency for dysfunction in the individual. And this starts already from when you're a child and are pretty much taught to think in those terms.

 

[2babylon]

I get you. I just downplay my abilities and (if I like the person) flatter them when I can. If I don't like them, I ignore them politely. I like to learn lots and be good at anything I have time to practice, and this habit can get you on the bad side of those with sensitive egos.

There are many cliches and airport novels (i.e. Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power) that will impress upon you the importance of being discrete with your abilities and interest. Everyone shouldn't know your hand. fwiw downplaying it is just an act, I will usually try my best if I care to improve.

I'm too independent to let others' emotions impede my choice to do better, though... my improvement is not about them.