A common correlation attributed to people of great intelligence, talent, or ability is often the idea that they lack social intelligence, sort of almost as a compensation for their increased abilities.
This is a classic perception that is quite widespread. The "compensation" for their increased abilities is not often attributed to other areas, but rather mostly just social ability, social power and integration.
Many brilliant people accept this assessment for themselves, we even describe it clinically in terms of things like Autism, Asperger's and the concept of a savant.
It is my assertion that this is bullshit, disguised as biological objective insight.
It's really nothing different, fundamentally, from the people who see someone being smart, perhaps someone who is beating them in an intellectually demanding game, and react by making primitive remarks about that person's sex life, their loser status, and so on.
The dull masses can't accept that increased intelligence and sensitivity creates certain conditions in the given (dulled) social world: more awareness, for example in conversation, which can often create certain sensitivities that make it harder to communicate with or tolerate a more base human, and which is often quite reversed when two such intelligent and sensitive individuals communicate. ("Sensitivity" can be seen as another word for intelligence.) It is increased social intelligence and sensitivity that they possess, not the opposite. There also can be some lack of social integration: a lack of concern with social hierarchy and practicing gearing oneself towards advancing in such an area; more concern with deeper mental pursuits rather than practicing base social integration, and thus a loss at "knowing what to say." If a highly intelligent person willingly turns their abilities towards proliferating in such social pursuits, they can often be particularly successful/capable, but if they are smart enough, they are not as likely to desire to, and perhaps cannot even stand to, even despite painful alienation and isolation. To put it more bluntly, increased intelligence is not conductive to whore society, and in fact such base power-hungry behavior is mindless and primitive. That being socially power-hungry or promiscuous is ingenuine and stupid. Further, that whore culture is predatory and destructive towards intelligence and sensitivity.
Those who are part of the masses do not generally characterize themselves as dulled defects or in need of a diagnosis, even when they are clearly the ones deficient compared to a minority. (nor do they want to admit to such a thing) and so we have the little lies and subconscious rhetoric to silence everyone from addressing the issue. One good example of this at work are the accusations of "insecurity" or "confidence".
This essentially describes the classic nerd/jock archetype. In fact, it really underlies basically everything, as the social creatures that we are, based on evolution's procreative demands. For example, let's take a look at the social movement surrounding homosexuality. Being gay is seen as something that carries a stigma, and this is the basis of the movement, the arguments. But this stigma is essentially the same sort of maligned social power that runs into problems with the power hungry, sexualized base nature of humanity. The oppressed sense usually associated with "being gay" is essentially a convoluted, external representation of this underlying sense of social malignment, (a representation: only an image, which does not have to fundamentally be the same thing despite its' appearance) and people harness the issue in both directions, either to channel vulnerable concerns about social isolation/poverty into something easier/"cooler" to talk about, (homosexuality being more comfortable to talk about then virginity) or to mask the cruelty of their promiscuity and greed by creating the image of being accepting and loving. Note the way people constantly use words like "inclusive" or "dysphoria" to pander around when speaking of homosexuality... they are trying to play off your own lonely, alienated vulnerabilities, whether for good or for bad. of course, both types will also speak against homosexuality for similar reasons. By channeling underlying, repressed concerns into a superficial image, manipulation becomes possible and confusion flourishes.
If this sounds like strange nonsense to you, consider this: When people call someone a "fag", for example, they are often referring to a person's social state, not their orientation. They are referring to these same "nerd" archetypes that I have discussed, in the classic "nerd/jock" dichotomy. They are referring to the "losers". When they call such people "fags", they are expressing their own desired social dominance over that person's lack of social power. They are emphasising the humiliation that comes with virginal and vulnerable qualities. Perhaps the unspeakably uncomfortable sense they carry over a guy's proximity from female bodies. (or vice versa) In fact, I have seen people do this (numerous times) while simultaneously apologizing for using the word "fag", as it pertains to literal homosexuality. Look at people in forums or games online, who use these words constantly. Look at the classic portrayed example of fathers who call their sons faggots and see them as defective based on their more sensitive, meek or introverted qualities, such as the gentle kid who stays home writing sentimental poetry.
The topic of homosexuality in society, like so many other topics, is mostly just kind of a convoluted adopted shell to channel these underlying issues, stigmas and instincts into, without having to talk about them directly. A distraction, which fascinates and can never really come to a conclusion because no one will really admit what they are actually trying to talk about. Not even to themselves. What important underlying values (or lack thereof) motivate them to speak passionately one way or the other.
And, like I said, that is just one example. I can point out the same phenomenon in aspects of topics such as sexism, racism, "nerd culture", politics, rape, bullying, mental illness, economics, religion, fashion, and on and on.
And people use all of these topics in both directions to manipulate the issue in different ways. Look at how so-called "nerd culture" has become this huge, popular thing, and there is sort of this unspoken sense of irony that comes with that.. the arguments about what it means to be a "true nerd" or the presence of slutty behavior, within nerd culture. Look at the way people will adopt calling themselves a nerd almost as a badge to subconsciously prove something about themselves to others, as if adopting the shell makes them a more genuine person in some way. It's all really quite ridiculous. With any self-honesty, we know what the original meaning behind being a "nerd" was about, that made it what it was: having an interest in those things that bear proximity from sex or body, social power, more mind-based pursuits, which put those individuals at a certain position of diminishment in the social spectrum. Those interests that heavily wrapped them up in their own alien world. So, classically speaking, being interested in chess made you a nerd, being interested in football did not. Having no social life made you a nerd, having a girlfriend did not. Interests pertaining to the "nerd" exterior can shift somewhat, however, as we have seen with things like comic book culture and its massive popularity, endless 'Hollywood' superhero movies, huge conventions, the cheerleader-like cosplayers, people trying to prove how "nerd" they are to gain social acceptance, and so on; and thus, the sense that the meaning has been lost.
This - this social state - is the only real, positive meaning that being a "nerd" ever had, the rest is just the associated shell, which people can adopt, without actually encompassing any of the meaning, and which, over time, can even be reversed to contain the exact opposite meaning. As with the topic of homosexuality, it's just a shell, an appearance with an initial underlying meaning which can be lost or bastardized. That meaning is the only thing of importance, appearances are useless and should be discarded in pursuit of the internal value of things.
Everything is about the give and take of love: its' abuse and bastardization; love, meekness and sentiment vs. ego and power; and denial, repression and manipulation by a society that is overwhelmingly guilty and unaware of itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment