[Alexandrov] Being a Whiny Bitch

[Alexandrov]

My experience with intellectuals (basically all the kids who are decently smart) has been one that has helped me to understand why there could be the animosity as described by Darth Wong. The simple reason is that many intellectuals are actually elitist, and refuse to associate or even have a friendly conversation with someone they deem "socially inferior" due to a lesser intellect.

Take this example: There is a kid in my grade who is basically revered because everyone thinks he is the smartest person in the world, and because he is endowed with excellent charisma. However, most of his conversations with people dumber than him consist of the less bright student telling him something, and then him just nodding and laughing, obviously not acknowledging what the other person has just said. He is basically putting up a facade to make himself appear friendly (which works for most people) without having to actually engage in the discussion. Soon after, he finds a convenient way to disengage from the meeting, and goes off to talk with people he finds more on par with his intelligence (or at least based on his narrow-sighted assessment of others.) His actions to most are concealing, but since I figured them out (see below), I know exactly what he thinking and why he is doing it. Considering most people who are the "intellectuals" described above act accordingly, I can see why less cerebrally endowed individuals began to dislike or hate intellectuals. They eventually will learn what is going on, and aren't stupid enough to recognize the social shunning.


P.S. I figured this out because I used to talk to him a long time ago, when I was new to the area and searching desperately for friends. I had heard others talking about how smart this kids was, so I decided to talk to him, hoping that we would understand each other well since we were both so intelligent. Of course, what I described above occurred, since he didn't know (or think) that I was smart enough to warrant a real conversation. As the time went by, I noticed this happening to other people (eavesdropping is a natural skill to me), and began to realize how he functioned. I then observed many of his friends, and they acted the same way.

[Edi]

That's a fairly worthless anecdote since it only deals with one person and tries to extrapolate asshole behavior to a large group of people from there with no basis.

[Bounty]

I figured this out because I used to talk to him a long time ago, when I was new to the area and searching desperately for friends.

You don't think your despair, massive ego and eavesdropping had anything to do with this? Or that maybe you two just didn't have anything to talk about?

The idea that he'd like you because you're supposedly "intelligent" (or at least like to think you are" is ridiculous; people interact socially because based on personality, not IQ.

[Alexandrov]

.
You don't think your despair, massive ego and eavesdropping had anything to do with this? Or that maybe you two just didn't have anything to talk about?

No, I don't. He just didn't listen. I even used topics that I heard him talking with other people about (general topics), he gave me the laugh response, rather than actual conversation.

And, it isn't really eavesdropping, because I don't purposefully listen in on other conversations. I guess it is more of a talent for picking up stuff I hear and retaining it, rather than deliberately listening in on the conversations of others.

The idea that he'd like you because you're supposedly "intelligent" (or at least like to think you are" is ridiculous; people interact socially because based on personality, not IQ.

Yeah, but in my experience people who are intelligent see eye-to-eye more easily, which would help negate some personality differences. This is based off of a friend for elementary school who was basically what the kid I originally described was. However, while he was social and outgoing, and I was completely opposite, we got along well because we saw eye-to-eye and understood each other.

[Alexandrov]

.
You don't think your despair, massive ego and eavesdropping had anything to do with this? Or that maybe you two just didn't have anything to talk about?

No, I don't. He just didn't listen. I even used topics that I heard him talking with other people about (general topics), he gave me the laugh response, rather than actual conversation.

And, it isn't really eavesdropping, because I don't purposefully listen in on other conversations. I guess it is more of a talent for picking up stuff I hear and retaining it, rather than deliberately listening in on the conversations of others.

The idea that he'd like you because you're supposedly "intelligent" (or at least like to think you are" is ridiculous; people interact socially because based on personality, not IQ.

Yeah, but in my experience people who are intelligent see eye-to-eye more easily, which would help negate some personality differences. This is based off of a friend for elementary school who was basically what the kid I originally described was. However, while he was social and outgoing, and I was completely opposite, we got along well because we saw eye-to-eye and understood each other.

That's a fairly worthless anecdote since it only deals with one person and tries to extrapolate asshole behavior to a large group of people from there with no basis.

I found the majority of the so called "intellectuals" at my school to show similar behavior, not just the kid in my story. I used him because it was the best example I had, and the one easiest to write about.

About the extrapolation, also, isn't it perfectly normal and valid to take a section of the population, note trends and then extrapolate these trends to the larger populace? I know it is done in university level studies everywhere, and I don't see how what I did was any different (aside from the obvious informality). It makes sense that you can't extrapolate based off of one isolated incident or individual, but if everyone does it in your section of the populace, it makes equal sense that a trend is evident and applicable to a greater number of people.

[Alexandrov]

You don't think your despair, massive ego and eavesdropping had anything to do with this? Or that maybe you two just didn't have anything to talk about?

No, I don't. He just didn't listen. I even used topics that I heard him talking with other people about (general topics), he gave me the laugh response, rather than actual conversation.

And, it isn't really eavesdropping, because I don't purposefully listen in on other conversations. I guess it is more of a talent for picking up stuff I hear and retaining it, rather than deliberately listening in on the conversations of others.

The idea that he'd like you because you're supposedly "intelligent" (or at least like to think you are" is ridiculous; people interact socially because based on personality, not IQ.

Yeah, but in my experience people who are intelligent see eye-to-eye more easily, which would help negate some personality differences. This is based off of a friend for elementary school who was basically what the kid I originally described was. However, while he was social and outgoing, and I was completely opposite, we got along well because we saw eye-to-eye and understood each other.

That's a fairly worthless anecdote since it only deals with one person and tries to extrapolate asshole behavior to a large group of people from there with no basis.

I found the majority of the so called "intellectuals" at my school to show similar behavior, not just the kid in my story. I used him because it was the best example I had, and the one easiest to write about.

About the extrapolation, also, isn't it perfectly normal and valid to take a section of the population, note trends and then extrapolate these trends to the larger populace? I know it is done in university level studies everywhere, and I don't see how what I did was any different (aside from the obvious informality). It makes sense that you can't extrapolate based off of one isolated incident or individual, but if everyone does it in your section of the populace, it makes equal sense that a trend is evident and applicable to a greater number of people.

Edit: Sorry for the mess, I forgot that HoS posts are unable to be edited. Please delete the previous two posts of mine.

[Bounty]

No, I don't. He just didn't listen. I even used topics that I heard him talking with other people about (general topics), he gave me the laugh response, rather than actual conversation.

So he brushed you off? I hate to break it to you, but that's going to happen a lot. Sometimes, you just don't have the time or desire to talk to someone, so you smile, nod and get out. It happens. And there's no reason to think this has anything to do with intelligence.

And, it isn't really eavesdropping, because I don't purposefully listen in on other conversations. I guess it is more of a talent for picking up stuff I hear and retaining it, rather than deliberately listening in on the conversations of others.

You can't get the full gist of a conversation by eavesdropping, you'll just get snippets of snippets.

Yeah, but in my experience people who are intelligent see eye-to-eye more easily, which would help negate some personality differences.

And you base this on what? A guy who may or may not be a turd brushing off a kid who may or may not be a turd himself?

[PeZook]

Yeah, but in my experience people who are intelligent see eye-to-eye more easily, which would help negate some personality differences. This is based off of a friend for elementary school who was basically what the kid I originally described was. However, while he was social and outgoing, and I was completely opposite, we got along well because we saw eye-to-eye and understood each other.

Okay, kid, listen...there's really no soft way of saying this.

You don't know shit.

Frankly, it was evident when you tried to contribute to a discussion about attitudes towards adult, university educated professionals using an example of a fucking high school kid. Your little anecdote is worthless for proving anything.

It became even more evident when you presented your little theory on how "smart" people supposedly get along better with each other than with "non-smart" ones, which just shows how little you know about, you know, actual human interaction.

As others mentioned, people get along based on personality and interests, not IQ. If you don't have anything to talk about with each other, then you can both have an IQ of 180 and you'd never, ever, become friends.

Of course, none of that actually has any relevance to the discussion, which was about real intellectuals, not high-school kids.

I found the majority of the so called "intellectuals" at my school to show similar behavior, not just the kid in my story. I used him because it was the best example I had, and the one easiest to write about.

High school kids are not intellectuals, no matter how elite the school or how smart they think they are.

About the extrapolation, also, isn't it perfectly normal and valid to take a section of the population, note trends and then extrapolate these trends to the larger populace? I know it is done in university level studies everywhere, and I don't see how what I did was any different (aside from the obvious informality).

The informality is exactly the fucking problem. You take an extremely small sample of the population from an age bracket of 14 to 18 years old and then extrapolate their behavior and attitudes to a population of university educated professionals 25 years old and up.

One could also mention the lack of a control group (how is the behavior of your selected sample different from the rest of the high school population? Is it different at all?) and the fact it was a qualitative "study", not a quantitative one.

Frankly, you'd get failed with epic grandeur if you spouted this bullshit to a university professor. Please remember that in case you ever have to take an oral exam in the real world.

It makes sense that you can't extrapolate based off of one isolated incident or individual, but if everyone does it in your section of the populace, it makes equal sense that a trend is evident and applicable to a greater number of people.

No, it's not, because you try to apply trends from one population to a completely different one. Don't try to pretend your little observations are equal to a university study, because then I will just have to call you a moron.

[Starglider]

Take this example: There is a kid in my grade who is basically revered because everyone thinks he is the smartest person in the world, and because he is endowed with excellent charisma. However, most of his conversations with people dumber than him consist of the less bright student telling him something, and then him just nodding and laughing, obviously not acknowledging what the other person has just said. He is basically putting up a facade to make himself appear friendly (which works for most people) without having to actually engage in the discussion. Soon after, he finds a convenient way to disengage from the meeting, and goes off to talk with people he finds more on par with his intelligence (or at least based on his narrow-sighted assessment of others.)

And this is a problem why? Intelligent people generally find talking to stupid people tedious and a waste of time (with the exception of mocking them for fun, which goes on a lot here). There is no reason to do it when it isn't necessary. Actually I'm fairly impressed that a teenager has enough charm and self-control to make the pretence - I only gained patience for dealing with idiots when I worked on supermarket counters in my late teens.

[Darth Wong]

My experience with intellectuals (basically all the kids who are decently smart) has been one that has helped me to understand why there could be the animosity as described by Darth Wong. The simple reason is that many intellectuals are actually elitist, and refuse to associate or even have a friendly conversation with someone they deem "socially inferior" due to a lesser intellect.

Since the jocks and the social gadflies are actually socially superior in the high-school environment you inhabit, you're obviously talking out of your ass.

[The Yosemite Bear]

from john lennon

"They hate you if your clever, and they dispise the fool"

basically if you understand that which your average middle american, no education type can't your wrong, and dangerous, and by understanding it, you make them feel infirior, you damned dirty white tower eliteist. (reminds me of the time I took my Fuel Injected car into a redneck mechanic, and he said that the problem was obviously in my Carburator, I replied that the car didn't have, or need a carburator. He said that it was physically impossible for a car to run without one. I looked at my uncle and said, "It says FUEL INJECTED, it uses a computer to control how much petrol fumes it sprays in", My uncle the mechanic replied that "No computer could ever out smart a good manual carborator."

[Alexandrov]

Yeah, but in my experience people who are intelligent see eye-to-eye more easily, which would help negate some personality differences. This is based off of a friend for elementary school who was basically what the kid I originally described was. However, while he was social and outgoing, and I was completely opposite, we got along well because we saw eye-to-eye and understood each other.

Okay, kid, listen...there's really no soft way of saying this.

You don't know shit.

Frankly, it was evident when you tried to contribute to a discussion about attitudes towards adult, university educated professionals using an example of a fucking high school kid. Your little anecdote is worthless for proving anything.

It became even more evident when you presented your little theory on how "smart" people supposedly get along better with each other than with "non-smart" ones, which just shows how little you know about, you know, actual human interaction.

As others mentioned, people get along based on personality and interests, not IQ. If you don't have anything to talk about with each other, then you can both have an IQ of 180 and you'd never, ever, become friends.

Of course, none of that actually has any relevance to the discussion, which was about real intellectuals, not high-school kids.

I found the majority of the so called "intellectuals" at my school to show similar behavior, not just the kid in my story. I used him because it was the best example I had, and the one easiest to write about.

High school kids are not intellectuals, no matter how elite the school or how smart they think they are.

About the extrapolation, also, isn't it perfectly normal and valid to take a section of the population, note trends and then extrapolate these trends to the larger populace? I know it is done in university level studies everywhere, and I don't see how what I did was any different (aside from the obvious informality).

The informality is exactly the fucking problem. You take an extremely small sample of the population from an age bracket of 14 to 18 years old and then extrapolate their behavior and attitudes to a population of university educated professionals 25 years old and up.

One could also mention the lack of a control group (how is the behavior of your selected sample different from the rest of the high school population? Is it different at all?) and the fact it was a qualitative "study", not a quantitative one.

Frankly, you'd get failed with epic grandeur if you spouted this bullshit to a university professor. Please remember that in case you ever have to take an oral exam in the real world.

It makes sense that you can't extrapolate based off of one isolated incident or individual, but if everyone does it in your section of the populace, it makes equal sense that a trend is evident and applicable to a greater number of people.

No, it's not, because you try to apply trends from one population to a completely different one. Don't try to pretend your little observations are equal to a university study, because then I will just have to call you a moron.

In retrospect, I agree. There is no way to equate immature high schoolers to fully educated adults. Thanks for pointing this out, and I concede.

Since the jocks and the social gadflies are actually socially superior in the high-school environment you inhabit, you're obviously talking out of your ass.

At the risk of starting a flame-war, I would like to point out that your statement is exactly what you deem mine to be, since it is a stereotypical assumption with no basis in fact.

[Spin Echo]

Since the jocks and the social gadflies are actually socially superior in the high-school environment you inhabit, you're obviously talking out of your ass.

At the risk of starting a flame-war, I would like to point out that your statement is exactly what you deem mine to be, since it is a stereotypical assumption with no basis in fact.

While his statement is a stereotype, it also happens to be one that is correct most of the time. While your case of the guy being revered for being smart may be true, it's hardly the norm.

High school is a wonderful environment for seeing the tall poppy syndrome in action. As a kid in school, I was teased, bullied and shunned because I was one of the smartest kids in my grade. When I went off to university for my undergrad, I went to a very good school where I was in with all the other kids who used to be the smartest ones in their school. Their experiences sounded remarkably similar to mine.

I find your claim preposterous that many intelligent people don't like to interact with the "common people". You're treating them like caricatures. Smart people don't sit around all day thinking feep thoughts. They also have non-intellectual pursuits such as sports, cooking, music, video games or fashion just to name a few, which will often bring them in contact with people outside the ivory tower.

About the extrapolation, also, isn't it perfectly normal and valid to take a section of the population, note trends and then extrapolate these trends to the larger populace? I know it is done in university level studies everywhere, and I don't see how what I did was any different (aside from the obvious informality). It makes sense that you can't extrapolate based off of one isolated incident or individual, but if everyone does it in your section of the populace, it makes equal sense that a trend is evident and applicable to a greater number of people.

There's also something called "sample selection", meaning you can't assume that your sample is representative of the general population. University studies realise this and take it into consideration. In your case, trying to extrapolate something from high school bullshit is meaningless.

[brianeyci]

Alexandrov, people can talk to and make friends with who they want. You say the smart kid doesn't actually engage in discussion and humors them, and at first chance goes to talk with smarter people. Guess what, when smarter people are forced to talk with dumber people, this is the best they can do and is actually a good life skill to deal with work, which will no doubt have many dumber but more charismatic and powerful people in charge you'll have to suck up to. You say he's not forced, but of course he is -- life is a community, you can't ignore everyone even if you try, and someone who ignores dumber people completely you'd accuse of being a social outcast. That charismatic smart guy in your school knows how life works, and deals it with best he can.

So, you don't want smarter people to ignore dumber people. But you want smarter people to talk to dumber people, only at their level and to be genuine about it. In other words you want smart people to make friends with dumb people. Well too bad, people can make friends with who they want, and I'm sure you don't want others telling you who to make friends with.

You have any ancedotes where a smart person doesn't give a fuck about say, dying starving children in Africa who are dumb? Smart people do care about the welfare of the human race. In fact I'd consider that one of the criteria of intelligence. But it doesn't mean they have to make friends with them. They can if they want but they don't have to. Like Starglider said there's no need so what's the point.

[Darth Wong]

At the risk of starting a flame-war, I would like to point out that your statement is exactly what you deem mine to be, since it is a stereotypical assumption with no basis in fact.

Hey fucktard, who gets more funding at high-school? The football team or the chess club?

[Havok]

At the risk of starting a flame-war, I would like to point out that your statement is exactly what you deem mine to be, since it is a stereotypical assumption with no basis in fact.

Hey fucktard, who gets more funding at high-school? The football team or the chess club?

Is that the best example?
A football team requires more funding as it involves considerable more equipment, transportation costs, insurance, and a bare, BARE, minimum of of at least 11 kids, and that is assuming that they all play every single down and none of them get hurt the entire season, which is not going to happen. A HS team usually has between 25-50+ kids depending on the size of the school.
A team also has at least 3 coaches and can have up to 15 or more depending on the program.
All of the above applies to just the Varsity. There is still the JV and Freshman teams to fund.
It also has field maintenance costs for the main and practice fields and training facility upkeep.

A chess team, while I don't know if it has minimum member requirements for competition, or different skill levels (Varsity, JV, Freshman) seems like only would require food, lodging, transportation and board and piece costs. If it's a really renowned team, probably a dedicated room in the school some where.

I absolutely agree with your point, again I just think this is a bad example. If the Chess Club/Team got the same funding as the football program they would have boards, pieces and chairs made out of $100 bills.

[Beowulf]

To state my experience with the HS chess team, we had maybe a dozen people. Maintenance of equipment consisted of buying new pieces and boards every so often. Comes out to maybe $80 a year, if you need to buy two sets a year.

Coach is usually just a teacher who's interested, but then, football coaches usually have teaching jobs as well. A fifteen passenger van could transport everyone and everything.

A better comparison might be a FIRST robotics team, which for a good team can easy burn through $44k/year.

[Pick]

Heh, I was on chess club in middle school.

It would have taken probably less than $80 to get us all the materials we needed, it's true.

We still didn't get them, though.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Dammit, I needed to start the future supervillians club when I was in school. More money for us, or we use our lasers on the principal's office.

[Darth Wong]

It's not just the amount of money, it's the willingness to spend it. The fact is that you know the chess club would never get money if it needed it (for example, for an overseas trip), especially if it was a choice between that and the football team. And the fact that the football team costs far more to operate kind of underscores the point; why the fuck is all of this money being spent? Because it brings in revenue? That only further proves the point, that despite Alexandrov's bullshit, we glorify and worship these people, and will pay big money to see them.

There are goddamned high schools all over America which have closed their machine shops but which somehow find the money to pay six-figure salaries to fucking high-school football coaches. The American high-school culture is a pyramid with the football players at the top.

[Phillip Hone]

The American high-school culture is a pyramid with the football players at the top.

Even at the public high school I went to last year, where the football team had been something like 1 in 9 for several years, that pyramid still held true. The football program dwarfed all the other teams, and it even had its own weight room. It's literally almost a religious thing. The worst part of it is that it's not just the students who worship them, it's also most of the teachers. I live in Connecticut too, which I imagine is probably less football focused than most parts of the country (though I might be wrong about that).

[Darth Wong]

The really sad thing is that it's perfectly understandable if you think of us as primitive pack animals instead of thinking human beings. The football player is the alpha male by virtue of his size and performance in a game which revolves around large men violently crashing into each other. This is a motion which is almost exactly the same as the alpha-male ritual of large male bucks in the wild, which crash into each other antlers-first in an attempt to see who will be the dominant male.

As primitive pack animals, we should therefore follow and worship these alpha males. As sophisticated, civilized human beings, you'd think we'd recognize that the success of our society has far more to do with thinkers and workers than bruisers, but ... a lot of people prefer to go with their primitive instincts.

[Alexandrov]

At the risk of starting a flame-war, I would like to point out that your statement is exactly what you deem mine to be, since it is a stereotypical assumption with no basis in fact.

Hey fucktard, who gets more funding at high-school? The football team or the chess club?

You completely misinterpreted what I said. I was never arguing with the truth that many high schools do function like that. I actually agree. However, mine doesn't, and I was pointing out that you were making a statement based only on your mostly true opinion, rather than on facts about the social functioning of my high school.

Also, one question, which is serious. What does flaming pointlessly (as you did) provide for a discussion, or for anything in general? I don't see how calling your opponents immature names does anything beneficial.

[Darth Wong]

At the risk of starting a flame-war, I would like to point out that your statement is exactly what you deem mine to be, since it is a stereotypical assumption with no basis in fact.

Hey fucktard, who gets more funding at high-school? The football team or the chess club?

You completely misinterpreted what I said. I was never arguing with the truth that many high schools do function like that. I actually agree. However, mine doesn't, and I was pointing out that you were making a statement based only on your mostly true opinion, rather than on facts about the social functioning of my high school.

Wrong, moron. You said that the statement had "no basis in fact". Now your new fallback position is "it has plenty of basis in fact, but it is not a universal blanket generalization". Don't lie, asshole.

Also, one question, which is serious. What does flaming pointlessly (as you did) provide for a discussion, or for anything in general? I don't see how calling your opponents immature names does anything beneficial.

Why the fuck does it have to accomplish something beneficial? I do it because I feel like it, and because you deserve it.

[Plekhanov]

Do any countries aside from the US have this bizarre deification of sports players in schools? How did that start in the first place?

We certainly don't here in the uk, I was on my school hockey team and most peoples parents didn't even come to watch never mind the whole town & as for being given soft grades or girls wanting to cop off with me just because I happened to be the best right back in my year, I wish.