I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would be an affront to your intelligence.

-- George Bernard Shaw

Dear Dumbed Down,

You had to know you set yourself up for that—unless of course you’re (as is apparently the case) not half as clever as you think.

Look, here’s the reality—real intelligence consists of two key components; the ability to talk to virtually anyone—prince and pauper alike, stable hand or King, and more importantly to treat them with the same respect due their inherent dignity.

People who are really intelligent and able to use that cognitive horse power share several traits in common—an ability to moderate it, the recognition that virtually every experience and every person has something to teach us and is a learning opportunity and above all—with that kind of awareness and intelligence comes the humbling awareness of how little one really knows in the grand scheme of things. Intelligence, like wisdom, is modest because experience reminds it that there is so much still beyond one’s ken.

Worse yet, the real mark of ignorance is (particularly unwarranted) disregard for others.

Invincible ignorance is an actual moral doctrine in one religious tradition—ignorance is said to be invincible when one is unable to rid him or herself of it despite moral diligence that it is possible to undertake (and that one is obliged to undertake). This would include inadvertence, forgetting, lack of exposure to the tools to rid oneself of such ignorance etc.

Ignorance is ‘vincible’ it can be refuted by simple care and diligence. While that doesn’t require every possible (or extraordinary) effort it does require effort commensurate with the importance of the matter and the ability of the agent that can be reasonably be expected of a sensible and prudent person.

Given your claim to intelligence, surely you realize that the ability to bear with your colleagues and listen to them and even understand that they too have insights to offer you is not only an obligation—but would be an actual overt sign of what you lay claim to.

Look on the bright side (sorry Virago)—your actions point to invincible ignorance, so you may be off the hook. Unfortunately, that also vitiates your claim—which may be another reason to forbear.

It is impossible to underrate human intelligence - beginning with one's own

-- Henry Brooks Adams

Have you ever been to a Comdex Mensa Trekkie meeting?

Seriously.

A whole new paradigm shift in Uber intelligence inversley proportional to common sense and tact. One does learn to work with the material at hand.

Well, let’s just say I’ve had the opportunity to attend such events and declined. I prefer living in the real world and my wife and son and soon to arrive twin daughters plus my career provide quite enough on my schedule without delving into Fermat’s theorem with like-minded folks or the finer points of quantum physics ;)

Demosthenes2:

People who are really intelligent and able to use that cognitive horse power share several traits in common—an ability to moderate it, the recognition that virtually every experience and every person has something to teach us and is a learning opportunity and above all—with that kind of awareness and intelligence comes the humbling awareness of how little one really knows in the grand scheme of things

While I completely believe that the virtues you state are important, I have found that intelligence is decoupled from humbling awareness.

As a Mensan, I've met lots of certifiably intelligent people. Those at the extremes of intelligence (3 standard deviations above the norm) find it very difficult to moderate their intelligence. Even when making an effort and even when being aware that intelligence is not the end-all-and-be-all, it is difficult to operate at 'slow speed' all of the time. This is not an excuse for rudeness or snobbery (although it might be a plea for understanding).

An analogy might be a need to drive at a speed slower than your automobile wants to run. It's possible to keep slowing down by putting on the brakes, but it's a constant effort to keep the car at 10 miles an hour.

Almost everyone has been in situations where they "get it" and the people around them just don't "get it". The more intelligent one is, the more often one finds oneself in that position.

Having said all of that, I think the LW is a snob and probably nowhere near as smart as she thinks she is. She is also, as others have pointed out, mistaking knowledge (of not-so-important things) for intelligence.

I have mentioned "Freecycle" to many people who have turned out not to be familiar with it. That's a reflection of one's experience, not intelligence. I learned about Freecycle from others who had used it, and now (some) others hear about it the first time from me. But it's an "Oh, you're not familiar with it?" reaction, not a "How could you not know about it?" reaction. (For those who are curious, visit www.freecycle.org)

The LW needs to learn about manners and compassion regardless of what her intelligence level may or may not be.

Without having to divulge too much, let’s just say as someone who functions in the top 2% cognitively both verbally and numerically in reasoning what I’m saying is that one needn’t employ every tool every moment overtly—when you look at the testing and break it down: Leaning index, verbal skill, verbal reasoning cognitive function, numerical skill, numerical reasoning cognitive function, and then cross reference those with behavioral traits like: energy level, assertiveness, sociability, attitude, decisiveness, accommodating, independence and objective judgment what you find is the interplay between assertiveness and accommodation measures is the key. The best negotiators and the common thread among high functioning leaders is high level skew towards the cognitive ability with mid-range scoring on the assertiveness/accommodation scores—the ability to listen and assimilate and act upon mutual needs.

It’s really Socratic and about creating an open communication environment where people feel valued and understood and it necessitates the low need for ego involvement—which is the missing component for this letter writer. Statistically, that ego driven score skew comes with one trait only on the high end and accompanying insecurity in other areas.

I’ve seen plenty of the cognitive thoroughbreds who are able to throttle up and down and collaborate. It doesn’t mean they’re talent goes away—it means they better understand how to utilize it.

And yes, I was invited.

I really am not interesting in being around people who feel the perpetual need to surround themselves only with people they deem "worthy". I consider it boring. Worse, it's snobbish and sad.

I've also never found it necessary to "moderate" my intelligence. Why would I? I also never presume to lecture. People know when they're being patronised, even the Great Unwashed, who you seem to think are beneath notice.

People are interesting. I know this is an alien concept to you, but it is absolutely true. In all of my forty-something years (never mind how many), I have never once met someone that I could not learn something from. I absolutely mean that. I would never presume to think otherwise.

If I behaved the way you seem to, I woundn't be having as much fun as I do now. I also wouldn't be able to; rebuild an engine, change a tire, fix a faucet, lay tile, clean a chimney, raise goats, manage an aquarium, sew, cook, throw a party, fire porcelain, catch fish.....and the list goes on. Everything I learned, I learned from people who were generous enough to take the time to teach me, and I am grateful for that.

If you aren't willing to learn everything you can from every situation you're in, then what is the point of your much-vaunted intelligence? How tedious life must be for you if the only way you feel comfortable viewing people is from a pedestal. I can see why your clique is so important to you.

(By the way, I do own a serious sports car, and it is a bummer driving in city traffic, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying it.)

As a Mensa drop out myself I prefer the company of everyone and I have to take them (Mensaians) in small doses. Although I prefere discussing fourier series or descrete fourier transform. The fractals are awsome too!

Twins!!! OMG I didn't know those things were double barreled? I always presumed they were single shot.

but as a deliberately non Mensan who qualifies (much to my chagrin), I don't think a big brain is a gift, any more than blue eyes or big -- feet.

Social intelligence ought to be taken into account when toting up IQ scores -- and certainly aptitude tests. The fact that social facility isn't a criterion at Mensa speaks to the necessity of Mensa's existence for many members; but sometimes I've felt that Mensa is to the brilliant as AA is to the alcoholic. We should be helping each other cope with what sets us aside from others, and not just providing relief from the norm.

I don't think Demos is talking about "dumbing it down" but I do think the wisest of the smartest of us is capable of expressing ideas simply. (Of course I don't put myself in that category-- god only knows how many have walked away scratching their heads.) It's important not to assume your audience won't understand, just as it's important not to assume they will. Humility is the key. I do agree that it can be frustrating to slow down, but I've found that even extremely intelligent folk aren't often extremely intelligent about everything: try talking coronary anatomy to a philosopher.

Whether others can understand us or not is not an excuse for self righteousness, and I agree with you that this is especially so with the LW, who hardly qualifies for her own self appraisal.

Iso,

It is a double edged sword. Some days it is so frustrating to deal with some people from both sides.

I was so relieved to find a women's group made up of post grad educated women to associate with because sometimes you really do want to talk shop when shop is rather weighty intellectually.

Although, I will deviate anytime to talk about sex, BDSM, good food, and Wine.

I hate it when I disagree with you, but I do here.

First of all, I wouldn't sum up intelligence in terms of interpersonal skills. While respect and dignity are vital moral parameters, while they are important managerial skills (that this office manager evidently lacks), they're only one aspect of anything I might call intelligence. Intelligence includes problem-solving, making connections, mapping, weighing and assessing facts, and so forth. Mental facility in other words, and observation and people skills can be part of that, but they really don't have to be.

Second, I wouldn't paint ignorance as the opposite of intelligence. It's the opposite of knowledge, maybe. If intelligence is the ability to interpret and judge facts, then knowledge is just the facts themselves. In fact that's my beef with teh office worker: she has a couple facts that she's hoarding--a little knowledge--which she seems to have confused with being intelligent.

That said, your moral lessons both about intelligence and ignorance are both as sound and as well stated as I've come to expect. I just think your framing's off here.

K (Unless you're going with definition 2 of "intelligence," I guess.)

"But none of their events were any fun."

Oh good I thought I was the only one who felt that way.

Ok, so as one here who is never going to get invited to Mensa(much to my father's constrenation), I am a fairly intelligent person.

And while I think many people who are known for being 'smart' take pride in that, so do 'jocks' and 'blondes'. People like being praised for the gifts they possess.

But to me the real snobs ahve always been the middle class. Not quite rich/smart/pretty/athletic enough for true notice, so they have to inflate themselves.

That is the LW to me.

Disagree I mean. Hi K,

Listen, I’m not defining intelligence as knowledge or interpersonal skills. What I am saying is that raw cognitive horse power isn’t intelligence either. It’s a radial axis with multiple end points and they break down with different facets:

Leaning index (ability to learn), verbal skill (mastery of language), verbal reasoning cognitive function (this is one’s ability to verbally reason as opposed to vocabulary—the ability to manipulate verbal arguments in one’s mind rather than pure verbal artistry—it’s reasoning), numerical skill (arithmetic proficiency), numerical reasoning cognitive function (just like above, not numerical literacy as much as reasoning skill—understanding the trends of a balance sheet or a 10-k as opposed to calculation—pattern recognition skills here both on the two latter).

Those then get cross referenced those traits like: energy level, assertiveness, sociability, attitude, decisiveness, accommodating, independence and objective judgment because those two figure into ‘intelligence’ in terms of awareness and adaptive behavior, or overall cognitive function.

In that regard I suppose you could frame it as second definition intelligence, but I still think the framing holds. What profiteth it a woman to gain Craig’s list and lose her… nahhh… I just can’t do it. Not even on a dull Thursday afternoon ;)