smart = socially awkward?

[mj93]

<p>^ it’s like acting</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>Fact is - females are more likely to be in tune with people’s subconscious social cues than males are. In fact, a lot of males are notoriously bad at observing subconscious social cues (the worst of them tend to get diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome). Basically, people with AS don’t pick up those social cues unconsciously - they have to pick them up consciously - but people expect that you pick them up without formal instruction - which tends to distinguish those who must pick them up consciously (i.e through mistakes) from those who pick them up unconsciously.</p>

<p>==
That said the question is, is the social isolation component of high intelligence MORE important in social awkwardness or is it intelligence PER SE that is MORE important in social awkwardness? (or is it other factors that tend to correlate with high intelligence, such as predisposition to autistic traits?)</p>

<p>And social isolation is usually only the case of those with super-high levels of intelligence. But those with IQs 3 SDs above the norm are very rare. Anyways 84.6% of people are less than 1 SD above average (if we subscribe to a strict interpretation of the bell curve distribution of intelligence)</p>

[mr_chipset]

<p>Lol, Asperger’s syndrome != smartness :)</p>

<p>And in my opinion, a really intelligent person is harmonically educated in many different areas. A person who has only one/two interests in his life is pretty dumb because he can’t understand what life really is :)</p>

<p>Again, my personal opinion.</p>

<p>Plus, I think that autistic/asocial kids are created by overprotectiveness of parents and lack of social arena in the early childhood.</p>

[will.mansour]

<p>dumbest thread.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

Where did you get the figure of 2 SDs? It could be 1 SD for some people, 1.5 for others, 2 for others. It depends on the person’s personality. I know a lot of very intelligent females who are perfectly able to converse with people much dumber than they are (hell, some of them even marry males who are a lot dumber than they are) - the reason is because they’re willing to dumb themselves down for the sake of observing social niceties (and females are a lot more likely to have such personalities).

Seriously, do I need to define the word “generally”? I can’t remember where I heard that. But it was a semi-official source. Anecdotally, this seems to be true.</p>

<p>

I’ve certainly seen cases of wide disparities of intelligence within a marriage (though this assertion reeks of small-sample size bias). I’ll leave it to be refuted on its own merit.

Marriage IQ correlates quite highly.</p>

<p>

For me, it’s not a matter of intelligence inasmuch as it is about interest + curiosity in the fields I’m interested in. The problem is that no one’s curious in the fields that I’m interested in - so I have to rely on sending notes to myself. Of course the more intelligent are more likely to pursue academically stimulating fields (for the reason that the less intelligent find them so difficult and people won’t enjoy the fields that they cannot pursue). Since people 2 SDs of intelligence below me probably cannot pursue such fields, I won’t find any point in talking to them. But someone of my intelligence still may find a point in talking to them (since that person is probably less academic than I am).

A plausible explanation.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>On a side note, it’s amusing to note that most of us CCers probably will score at the 99th percentile of standardized tests - but yet many of the same CCers won’t score at the 99th percentile of IQ. Hell, my 10th grade PSAT score was well above the 99th percentile cutoff (especially considering that it was the 99th percentile for a group that was already above-average in intelligence - only the college-bound take PSATs) but my IQ was far below that.</p>

<p>

Marriage IQ correlates quite highly.

</p>

<p>Yes I realize that. I suppose that I suffer from the representative heuristic here (one of my parents is far smarter than the other - and it makes me depressed in some ways - since I’m pretty much in the middle and will never be as intelligent as my mother even though I’m A LOT more academically motivated than she is)</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>Still a decent correlation though.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>Anyways Mr Payne, have you read Herrnstein and Murray’s Bell Curve? What do you generally read for your sources on intelligence?</p>

<p>I’ve read a lot of Internet sources + Bell Curve + segments of Jensen’s “the g factor”</p>

<p>Feynman = 126 IQ and Watson = 124 IQ Also William Shockley and Luis Alvarez failed to get into the gifted Terman study (the irony was that Shockley later turned to be pro-eugenics)</p>

<p>==
<a href=“http://doctorandy.blogspot.com/2005/11/gifted-children.html[/url]”>http://doctorandy.blogspot.com/2005/11/gifted-children.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>==
Anyways we all know that IQ is not always the best indicator of intelligence in all individuals - it’s just the best we have and can only be reliable for populations - so my IQ references don’t have much of a point here - where we’re talking about individuals</p>

[mj93]

<p>134! dangggg that puts me just below the top 1%</p>

[TritiumKnight]

<p>Eh…the general stereotype works…but smart kids know how to be sociable…most of the time they aren’t really into doing it because they see it was too much work for too little gain. Plus, interests between “smart” kids and “normal” kids rarely cross over, adding more difficulty to the whole thing.</p>

[Sheed30]

<p>lol, i got me a 138 IQ .whoopdedoo!</p>