Intelligence, communication and social adaptation

[Nevero]

i've seen a couple of sources (c/p'ed below) claim that a difference of 15 points in intelligence scores makes it difficult for two people to understand one another. the person with higher IQ explains things in a way that is confusing to the person with low IQ, and generates insights and ideas that the lower IQ person cannot quickly grasp and contribute to. this creates a communication wall between them that prevents them from relating to each other. the lower IQ person can start resenting the higher IQ person for not slowing down and explaining things well, not realizing that the higher IQ person takes these things for granted., while the higher IQ person has no clue why the lower IQ person is so angry with them. other sources cite studies that show that people with higher intelligence may have poorer communication skills to begin with which hampers interaction with their peers.

is this similar to anyone's experience? are the communication skills of higher IQ scorers to blame or is there genuinely an understanding gap that prevents high/low IQ people from communicating effectively?

<><><>

According to Leta Hollingworth’s research, to be a leader of his contemporaries a child must be more intelligent but not too much more intelligent than them. A discrepancy of more than about 30 points of IQ does not allow for leadership, or even respect or effective communication. Hollingworth notes: A lesson which many gifted persons never learn as long as they live is that human beings in general are inherently very different from themselves in thought, in action, in general intention, and in interests. Many a reformer has died at the hands of a mob which he was trying to improve in the belief that other human beings can and should enjoy what he enjoys. This is one of the most painful and difficult lessons that each gifted child must learn, if personal development is to proceed successfully. It is more necessary that this be learned than that any school subject be mastered. Failure to learn how to tolerate in a reasonable fashion the foolishness of others leads to bitterness, disillusionment, and misanthropy [3, p. 259].

It is definitely the case that some intelligent people deserve the fear and hatred they inspire, though they may not share that view. Too many intelligent people debate like cats batting around a new shiny toy, looking, not so much for information and idea exchange, but rather for soft spots that they can swat for their own amusement. It is very natural that people with inferior knowledge or debating skills will then refuse to attempt to communicate. It is not fun to have a conversation with someone who is obviously bored with your ideas and must appear invincible at all times. Listening skills are essential for communication and both sides must not only be able to change their minds, but they must be seen to be able to change their minds.

<><><>

A friend of mine, an academic psychologist, remarked offhandedly a few months ago that communication between two human beings is difficult if the gap between their IQs is as much as one standard deviation (i.e. 15 points). If you try communicating across gaps bigger than that, she said, mutual understanding quickly becomes impossible. I've been trying this out on people in conversation ever since. People register mild disapproval at first, with clicking of tongues and shaking of heads. Then, if you press the point, they furrow their brows and say something like: “Yes, I sort of know what you mean.” One friend, a professional software developer/entrepreneur, was more blunt. Way more blunt: Yes, I don't find myself in long conversations with people whose IQs are in the 11x or 10x ranges, let alone any lower. In software development projects us smarter team members end up having rapid fire complex conversations and at the end explain the conclusions to the lesser minds. If this is a fact about the human world, it's a pretty depressing one. The full range of human IQs you are likely to encounter spans about six standard deviations; so depending where you fall in the range, there could be an awful lot of people with whom, for you, mutually rewarding conversation is not possible. That number will be less, the nearer to the center of the distribution you are (i.e. IQ 100), more the further out on one of the “tails” you are. And the whole effect (if it is an effect) is masked by the fact that we spend most of our time with people whose IQ is roughly equal to our own. I suppose politicians target their utterances at the middle of the IQ range, or a few points above it (since the left-hand tail of the distribution doesn’t vote much). That gives them the biggest potential “catch.” Still, for any given speech by any given politician, there must, on my friend’s theory, always be tens of millions of Americans who have no clue what the guy is saying, and tens of million more who wonder why he’s talking down to us.

<><><>

Genius-Failure Paradox. Chances are if you are like most people and myself, you would have noticed something distinguishable from the exercise. Those who were smartest in the class were generally not very popular due to poor social skills. (I know there are other measurements of communication than only popularity). They did not have good people skills. Presumptuous? Likely, no.

All intelligent people do not have poor people skills nor does all unintelligent people have good people skills. I know people will say, "But I know someone who is smart and great with people." Good. So do I. Intelligence and people skills are not mutually exclusive characteristics! Having one does not mean you cannot have the other.

What I'm proposing, which has been touched on and backed by a couple of authors and teachers, is that academically intelligent people fail in predictable areas of their lives, and they don't want to solve the dilemma. The genius-failure paradox describes that people who must feel smarter, wealthier, or generally superior to others refuse to seek help in dealing with people. (You can read more about superiority, inferiority, and the self-image.)

One particular smart flaw I used that Wagner mentioned was not starting a conversation because it would be a waste of time. The real reason I didn't start a conversation was my fear. I was scared ****less. Now I am more aware of my most common smart flaws, I stop myself in my tracks when I use them then identify the real reason why I'm rationalizing about my behavior. Whenever I do not talk to someone because it is a waste of time, I now realize it could be because I am not dealing with my emotions. I maybe hiding: the fear of talking to strangers, feelings of unhappiness, or the anxiety that I will be boring.

A second finding from the study of interest to us is that the best way children can develop the communication skills required for life are through organized activities. These groups should have children of diverse ages, experiences, and interests, as well as adult leaders that provide guidance to the young group. The adult leaders typically have a goal they want the children to achieve together. Team sports are a good example of activities that fit the described criteria to help children develop their social skills. Even for mature adults, interacting with diverse individuals improves their communication skills because it requires a person to adapt and understand different people.

The implications of these findings on this article are vague, but I present them to you for your curiosity. Do smarter people participate in fewer organized activities that fit the criteria of developing children's social skills? Do smarter people participate in more singular extra-curricular activities like learning to play a musical instrument? Is their a trade-off between social interaction and increasing your intelligence? Do the less-intelligent individuals spend their time in these socially-beneficial activities instead of studying?

One thing we do know is that social skills, and other communication skills, need to be practiced on a frequent basis. While people can naturally have the gift of the gab, be emotionally intelligent, or win friends very easily, communication skills atrophy without practice. I've repeatedly seen a person with poor communication skills experience a cyclic effect. Their poor communication thwarts them from putting themselves in situations that require those communication skills, which further decreases their social skills. Should a person have poor communication skills during their developmental and independent years, I believe they struggle to improve the skill for several reasons - mostly an over-reliance on their intellect.

http://www.towerofpower.com.au/why-s...to-do-about-it

[Absurd]

So, this is where EII are at. Cool thread, going to read in a few days.

[Aylen]

What does it say about me, after reading the article, that all I want to do is correct this sentence? I welcome all grammar and spelling correction, btw...It helps me learn.

All intelligent people do not have poor people skills nor does all unintelligent people have good people skills.

[remer]

Hi Nevero,

On a serious note regarding my youth, in my generalized experience having the highest grades in class results in the one hand arousing either envy or subordination in fellow classmates, and on the other hand transforming a few who from then now on consider you either their equal or declare you their rival. As humans are ruled by emotions, I believe it is only natural that people disperse once a certain institution of hierarchy is established. Next to grades, IQ is just another method of ranking. Lacking proper communication skills prevents to bridge this social gap.

Now I recall that the topic addresses an understanding gap. On topic I would argue that people of 'different IQ' but of 'equal understanding' would have no problems with understanding each other. I think that understanding is measured in knowledge and experience, which in turn are influenced by time and intelligence. Concerning continuous learning I believe the understanding gap between certain individuals will over time become increasingly wider. I feel a great example of this are erudite scientists who are leading experts in their studied field.

Next would be the difference between specific understanding and general understanding. I don't think there exist something as a general understanding of things, I feel it is just arrogance if someone claims to have such a higher general understanding. Once again, a person with high intelligence will be able to learn faster, but any person given the time and position should be able to reach an equal level of specific understanding. However since life is limited, young intelligent people may have certain specific understandings that are equal to persons many times their age, and therefor are very likely to end up achieving larger understanding overall. My point made is in the potentiality, which I know is arguable.

Another aspect I do recognize is the art of learning, the ability to learn to learn, here, I claim all highly intelligent people are able to grasp this art easier, and thus one might speak of a general understand, whereas actually a improved learning capacity is referred to. Or alternatively increased art of learning is specifically tied to certain types, my guess would be the intuitive types.

Concerning the lack and development of communication skills I believe we can fall back to the domain of Socionics, with the Logical types generally having the most difficulty getting their social skills up to par. Then again, I can imagine someone describing how persons with high intelligence can have a different maybe deeper experience of the ethical information elements, even compared to (quasi-)identicals and therefor conflicting heavier with other people, but I leave that to those someones who assumingly have far better understanding of Socionics than I have.

Still on the topic of intelligence and Socionics, I have this idea that intelligence is not much else than a high energy fuel that intensifies the information metamoblism within a person. Completely speculative, I wonder what you and others think about this? :-)

From personal experience, I always liked learning, most of the time I enjoyed pleasing my parents and teachers with high grades. But at a certain point I felt myself discomfortable in the spotlights, the pressure to perform stressed me out. I couldn't keep up, and quickly dropped, even to levels of underperformance. At the same time I was confused by the gap that has grown between me and my circle of friends, in my eyes, only because I kept and liked reading and learning, and adjusted my interests and hobbies. As I try to imagine the benefits of competition, I firsthanded experienced the downside of too much, competition turned into pressure. For a long time I believed I had to strictly keep up with intellectual pursuits, stay true to my mind, only that way would I attract the right people that were of the same level. To a certain extend this I think still holds true today, but only after a great deal of loosening up have I connected to those few I met that I consider my equal. For the other part, I actually enjoy meeting people of all likes, and I have learned to turn down myself a notch or two, have wonderful conversations with many amazing people. Hopefully one day soon, I will stumble upon that special person or group of people that satisfies my needs and enrich my life in such ways I am able to transform my lack of stamina into the potentiality I have always pictured myself to be. :-)

[geneiouws]

i gotz da e.t. skillz yo

[remer]

i gotz da e.t. skillz yo

I know exactly what you mean, such is life yo.

[ouronis]

Hi Nevero,

On a serious note regarding my youth, in my generalized experience having the highest grades in class results in the one hand arousing either envy or subordination in fellow classmates, and on the other hand transforming a few who from then now on consider you either their equal or declare you their rival. As humans are ruled by emotions, I believe it is only natural that people disperse once a certain institution of hierarchy is established. Next to grades, IQ is just another method of ranking. Lacking proper communication skills prevents to bridge this social gap.

Now I recall that the topic addresses an understanding gap. On topic I would argue that people of 'different IQ' but of 'equal understanding' would have no problems with understanding each other. I think that understanding is measured in knowledge and experience, which in turn are influenced by time and intelligence. Concerning continuous learning I believe the understanding gap between certain individuals will over time become increasingly wider. I feel a great example of this are erudite scientists who are leading experts in their studied field.

Next would be the difference between specific understanding and general understanding. I don't think there exist something as a general understanding of things, I feel it is just arrogance if someone claims to have such a higher general understanding. Once again, a person with high intelligence will be able to learn faster, but any person given the time and position should be able to reach an equal level of specific understanding. However since life is limited, young intelligent people may have certain specific understandings that are equal to persons many times their age, and therefor are very likely to end up achieving larger understanding overall. My point made is in the potentiality, which I know is arguable.

Another aspect I do recognize is the art of learning, the ability to learn to learn, here, I claim all highly intelligent people are able to grasp this art easier, and thus one might speak of a general understand, whereas actually a improved learning capacity is referred to. Or alternatively increased art of learning is specifically tied to certain types, my guess would be the intuitive types.

Concerning the lack and development of communication skills I believe we can fall back to the domain of Socionics, with the Logical types generally having the most difficulty getting their social skills up to par. Then again, I can imagine someone describing how persons with high intelligence can have a different maybe deeper experience of the ethical information elements, even compared to (quasi-)identicals and therefor conflicting heavier with other people, but I leave that to those someones who assumingly have far better understanding of Socionics than I have.

Still on the topic of intelligence and Socionics, I have this idea that intelligence is not much else than a high energy fuel that intensifies the information metamoblism within a person. Completely speculative, I wonder what you and others think about this? :-)

From personal experience, I always liked learning, most of the time I enjoyed pleasing my parents and teachers with high grades. But at a certain point I felt myself discomfortable in the spotlights, the pressure to perform stressed me out. I couldn't keep up, and quickly dropped, even to levels of underperformance. At the same time I was confused by the gap that has grown between me and my circle of friends, in my eyes, only because I kept and liked reading and learning, and adjusted my interests and hobbies. As I try to imagine the benefits of competition, I firsthanded experienced the downside of too much, competition turned into pressure. For a long time I believed I had to strictly keep up with intellectual pursuits, stay true to my mind, only that way would I attract the right people that were of the same level. To a certain extend this I think still holds true today, but only after a great deal of loosening up have I connected to those few I met that I consider my equal. For the other part, I actually enjoy meeting people of all likes, and I have learned to turn down myself a notch or two, have wonderful conversations with many amazing people. Hopefully one day soon, I will stumble upon that special person or group of people that satisfies my needs and enrich my life in such ways I am able to transform my lack of stamina into the potentiality I have always pictured myself to be. :-)

I think this is all true pretty much, except for the hierarchy/rivalry part, but mostly because I've never thought about it. I think a perception of arrogance might be a big factor in that.

Or on the other hand, arrogance could be a misunderstanding that is explained by what you say.

[krieger]

i think all things being equal an inability to communicate effectively to anyone is indicative of lower intelligence, because it is a goal and skill intelligence can be leveraged towards...

[xerx]

i doubt the ability to explain things effectively has vey much to do with iq. more to do with understanding people's psychology and how to simplify concepts to bite-sized morsels.

[mu4]

It's not really just the communication skill of the higher IQ individual, it's the listening skills/ignorance of the lower IQ individual.

Even if a higher IQ individuals learn adaptive skills and social skills to communicate, if they cannot communicate what is necessary that communication is a failure. At a certain level you have to PR yourself and figure out a way present the message without offending them. And this is where you hire a marketing/PR person/Agent/etc to do it for you. Hiring someone else to do it for you. Person to Person it's very difficult to truly relate to people more than 2 standard deviations away from you, and what really happens is social deception and manipulation. Demagogues are quite good at this.

Socionics tells us that creative logical types have a fear/vulnerability in the area of ethics and base logical types see it as a important social role but one that is tiring. Even within logical types there a pronounced difference in how base rational and creative rational types deal with ethical situations.

Consequently, creative logical types can develop very unique and novel social adaptations or simply brute force it with PR assets, fear, domination and money. Base rationals tend to be more normative and mask adopting fulling their role ethical duties.

[mu4]

i think all things being equal an inability to communicate effectively to anyone is indicative of lower intelligence, because it is a goal and skill intelligence can be leveraged towards...

Who do you adapt to tho? If you're 180 IQ do you adapt to the 160 IQ or the 140 IQ or the 100 IQ? You adapt to the group that you need to deal with, not all the groups, because one skill-set is not enough. The reason why it's very hard to adapt to people beyond 1 standard deviation and almost impossible to adapt to people beyond 2 standard deviations is that you tune your message for 3 groups already in any sort of social skill set. The people directly above and below you and the people equal to you as the social system block these individuals together due to ability for the purpose of cooperative tasks.

At very high IQ this could be 1% of the population, if IQ is even a useful metric at those levels. At a certain point people's adaptive capabilities no matter how good they are only address a very small slice of the population. Now if they're lucky, they will have someone they work with who will do this communication for them, as a third party agent.

There have been intelligent people I've worked with whom I can't communicate with and I have a lot of trouble communication with most people at even above average IQ, they have virtually insurmountable communication issues because they are at a wavelength few of us could comprehend. The lucky thing is that sometimes intelligent individuals(dumb ones too) start recognizing when someone is so far above them they can't even understand them that these individuals get protected from having to actually being exposed to some of these issues. Over time as long as a very intelligent individual is providing value for others, shows their knowledge is valid, they can over come some of these social hurdles. Communication isn't always that important.

[xerx]

isaac newton ==> genius iq
bill nye ==> much lower than newton

jus' sayin

[mu4]

isaac newton ==> genius iq
bill nye ==> much lower than newton

jus' sayin

Newton also never married and is suspected to have died a virgin... just saying.. possibly same with Leibniz and Kant. I wouldn't call it the price of genius but the price of the time it might have require to do their work.

[xerx]

Newton also never married and is suspected to have died a virgin... just saying.. possibly same with Leibniz and Kant. I wouldn't call it the price of genius but the price of the time it might have require to do their work.

I meant in terms of their ability to explain stuff. Bill is probably a better popularizer of science; but so is Stephen Hawking, showing that IQ doesn't matter.

[mu4]

Albert Einstein married twice and had 5 children.

Albert was a interesting fellow from a social standpoint, he had a very novel mechanism for interacting with people. He also was often a recluse and isolated himself quite often. He also dropped out of college because of his inability to comply with the educational norms of his time and only finished his PHD after he had published his most famous works. He also never went to class and basically cheated his way to barely getting a teaching certificate.

You don't want to hear how his children viewed him either since he was a deadbeat and kinda of abandoned his wife and child. As smart as he was, he was kinda of an irresponsible fellow, but fairly benign in the grand scheme of things.

[mu4]

Because of differences in IQ and differences in perspectives, it is best to relate to others through emotion and feelings. People's logic and reasoning and rationality will always clash, but people will be receptive towards you if their hearts feel your love and they know you care about them.

'People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care.'

This idea is used in marketing/business often, designing commercials with an emotional appeal. Politicians throughout history have packaged and paraphrased very complex ideas into simple, relatable phrases that everyone can understand.

Think 'Speak softly and carry a big stick'. Think 'New Deal'. 'I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with terrible resolve'. Some quotes throughout history are simple sentences that have been condensed to explain complex military strategy or to cover up hidden motives and agendas.

Personally, I greatly improved my communication skills after working in sales, and I would highly recommend taking a sales position for everyone at some point in their life, the earlier the better. It doesn't matter how much 'English' or 'grammar' or 'communication' you think you may have learned sitting in a classroom or reading a book. The real communicators are the salespeople who have to relate to every different personality type, weather people's emotional tirades, and focus people's understanding and reasoning in an appealing way that will benefit them. Salespeople essentially are the master psychologists.

Manipulation <> understanding <> knowledge.

[mu4]

I meant in terms of their ability to explain stuff. Bill is probably a better popularizer of science; but so is Stephen Hawking, showing that IQ doesn't matter.

I think the target audience for the various messages is quite different, and you can have someone dumb you down for the target audience. Different people can produce different messages for different groups. It really depends how much time you can devote to things like this. Some individuals may only target people within their immediate interaction and acquire only those skills.