Intelligence as a negative??

[ppfizenm]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I heard something on the radio today that I thought was mirrored in the latest MD vs DO smack-down. The topic was on the elections but more specifically focused on Rick Santorum and his strategy of basically saying that Barack Obama thinks he is smarter than the all inclusive "us". The piece highlighted the right's use of liberal elitist as a person who believes he is more intelligent, has better taste, knows better than the hard working blue collar folks. The piece also talked about what the term elitist meant to the left, namely a person of great wealth. The problem with the left's characterization of the word, it was pointed out, was that these blue collar workers see these really wealthy people and think, okay, I'll be there soon, while they see the intellectuals as something that they can never obtain and perceive that they are being looked down on because of that fact.

My question really is why should it be taboo to recognize that certain people are smarter than others? We praise people for genetic gifts like beauty and athleticism constantly, while recognizing that we could never be that fast or naturally good looking. Why then is intelligence being turned into a negative? Some people are just smarter than others.

 

[BA11]

There's a difference between thinking you are smarter than everyone else and actually being smarter than everyone else. Most politicians fall into the former category. Nobody would complain if Stephen Hawking called himself a genius because it's easy to see that he is in fact smater than most of us.

Oddly enough, some of the most maligned and mocked politicians (like Newt Gingrich, for instance) are often some of the more intelligent and knowledgable candidates. Likewise nobody has ever accused Barack Obama of being an mental midget in public (only that he thinks he is smarter than he is), but his academic records show he isnt any more book smart than George Bush or Bill Clinton were and both have been called stupid their entire adult lives by competitors.

 

[drizzt3117]

Uh, Obama was the editor of the Harvard law review and Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, they aren't exactly dumb.

There's a difference between thinking you are smarter than everyone else and actually being smarter than everyone else. Most politicians fall into the former category. Nobody would complain if Stephen Hawking called himself a genius because it's easy to see that he is in fact smater than most of us.

Oddly enough, some of the most maligned and mocked politicians (like Newt Gingrich, for instance) are often some of the more intelligent and knowledgable candidates. Likewise nobody has ever accused Barack Obama of being an mental midget in public (only that he thinks he is smarter than he is), but his academic records show he isnt any more book smart than George Bush or Bill Clinton were and both have been called stupid their entire adult lives by competitors.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I think it becomes taboo when your intelligence leads you to become dissent with social institutes or "common sense".
Brilliance that illuminates the room and reveals inconveniences for others will be hated. It's all about shaking up culture and people's values. I mean stupid people probably see intellectuals as causing just as much trouble and problems as intellectuals see being caused by stupid people.

 

[ppfizenm]

There's a difference between thinking you are smarter than everyone else and actually being smarter than everyone else. Most politicians fall into the former category. Nobody would complain if Stephen Hawking called himself a genius because it's easy to see that he is in fact smater than most of us.

Oddly enough, some of the most maligned and mocked politicians (like Newt Gingrich, for instance) are often some of the more intelligent and knowledgable candidates. Likewise nobody has ever accused Barack Obama of being an mental midget in public (only that he thinks he is smarter than he is), but his academic records show he isnt any more book smart than George Bush or Bill Clinton were and both have been called stupid their entire adult lives by competitors.

But if you are more intelligent why is it taboo to recognize it and why is it alright to use someone's intelligence against them?

And no offense, regardless of affiliation, Newt Gingrich has said some pretty stupid things. The problem I have with him is not that I don't find him some-what intelligent though; it is his tactics, his morals, and his stunning displays of hypocrisy.

 

[tantacles]

There's a difference between thinking you are smarter than everyone else and actually being smarter than everyone else. Most politicians fall into the former category. Nobody would complain if Stephen Hawking called himself a genius because it's easy to see that he is in fact smater than most of us.

Oddly enough, some of the most maligned and mocked politicians (like Newt Gingrich, for instance) are often some of the more intelligent and knowledgable candidates. Likewise nobody has ever accused Barack Obama of being an mental midget in public (only that he thinks he is smarter than he is), but his academic records show he isnt any more book smart than George Bush or Bill Clinton were and both have been called stupid their entire adult lives by competitors.

Maybe if Gingrich used words like "polyamorous" accurately (Read: Not to describe his failed marriage), he wouldn't be as ridiculed.

And no offense, regardless of affiliation, Newt Gingrich has said some pretty stupid things. The problem I have with him is not that I don't find him some-what intelligent though; it is his tactics, his morals, and his stunning displays of hypocrisy.

No effing kidding.

 

[BA11]

Uh, Obama was the editor of the Harvard law review and Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, they aren't exactly dumb.

I believe both to be intelligent men, just as I believe Bush is an intelligent man. That was my point. Getting C's in various courses throughout one's academic career does not an idiot make, yet Clinton was made out to be a yokel inbred from Arkansas by republicans and Bush was the "idiot" who couldnt say nuclear right because his ten gallon hat was cutting off blood flow according to democrats. None however are "geniuses" by any stretch and all three are not capable of making incredibly educated financial decisions without advisors. Some men, like Newt, are regarded are gurus in various political fields. He would dance circles around Bush or Obama in a financial debate, it wouldnt even be fair.

 

[tantacles]

I believe both to be intelligent men, just as I believe Bush is an intelligent man. That was my point. Getting C's in various courses throughout one's academic career does not an idiot make, yet Clinton was made out to be a yokel inbred from Arkansas by republicans and Bush was the "idiot" who couldnt say nuclear right because his ten gallon hat was cutting off blood flow according to democrats. None however are "geniuses" by any stretch and all three are not capable of making incredibly educated financial decisions without advisors. Some men, like Newt, are regarded are gurus in various political fields. He would dance circles around Bush or Obama in a financial debate, it wouldnt even be fair.

Fortunately, we don't only consider financial matters when choosing a president.

 

[BA11]

But if you are more intelligent why is it taboo to recognize it and why is it alright to use someone's intelligence against them?

I don't think it is or that it should be, but I also don't think most politicians are "more" intelligent than the majority of us. More socially savvy perhaps, but not smater.

And no offense, regardless of affiliation, Newt Gingrich has said some pretty stupid things. The problem I have with him is not that I don't find him some-what intelligent though; it is his tactics, his morals, and his stunning displays of hypocrisy.

None taken, I'm not some huge fan of Newt's personal decisions or his morals. However, this country's biggest issue right now is our financial situation and he is remarkably bright and well-spoken on the subject. That said, I have no idea who I'm voting for at this point or even what party I'm voting for, frankly there isnt anybody who I'm just dying to have elected. I just know I want no part of Mitt Romney.

 

[BA11]

Fortunately, we don't only consider financial matters when choosing a president.

Agreed, which is why it's hard to like anybody too much in this election. That being said, if I had to choose one issue to base my vote on it would be the economy and there are a couple guys who stand out on that issue.

 

[kduck]

I think some of this evolves from the fact that intelligence doesn't necessarily mean someone is empathetic or even makes good decisions all the time. So a politician (particularly a liberal one, as the "blue collar" class tends to be more conservative) may be very intelligent, but all the "masses" see is that this person is making decisions about how they will all live, when they feel that this politician doesn't understand their culture or way of life, or relate to them on important levels; they feel that the politician thinks he's so smart and knows that he can make decisions for them better than they can do it themselves, and they feel belittled.

Now, is the politician actually better at making decisions for the masses than they are themselves? That's another question. But I don't think intelligence is necessarily the issue here; no one wants to stand up for his or her candidate and say, "Yup, he's dumb as rocks! Vote fill-in-the-blank-politician."

 

[ppfizenm]

I don't think it is or that it should be, but I also don't think most politicians are "more" intelligent than the majority of us. More socially savvy perhaps, but not smater.



None taken, I'm not some huge fan of Newt's personal decisions or his morals. However, this country's biggest issue right now is our financial situation and he is remarkably bright and well-spoken on the subject. That said, I have no idea who I'm voting for at this point or even what party I'm voting for, frankly there isnt anybody who I'm just dying to have elected. I just know I want no part of Mitt Romney.

I couldn't honestly care less if Newt cheated a hundred times. The morals I am referring to are more political in nature. And it is easy to pretend you have a solution to the economy when any effort from a different point of view is being automatically blocked in effort to strong arm control of the country away from another party. Hypothetical life is a fun place to live.

This is all off topic though.

 

[ppfizenm]

I think some of this evolves from the fact that intelligence doesn't necessarily mean someone is empathetic or even makes good decisions all the time. So a politician (particularly a liberal one, as the "blue collar" class tends to be more conservative) may be very intelligent, but all the "masses" see is that this person is making decisions about how they will all live, when they feel that this politician doesn't understand their culture or way of life, or relate to them on important levels; they feel that the politician thinks he's so smart and knows that he can make decisions for them better than they can do it themselves, and they feel belittled.

Now, is the politician actually better at making decisions for the masses than they are themselves? That's another question. But I don't think intelligence is necessarily the issue here; no one wants to stand up for his or her candidate and say, "Yup, he's dumb as rocks! Vote fill-in-the-blank-politician."

But taken out of the context of elections this highlights, that in general, intelligence is perceived as a negative.

 

[45408]

It's not the intelligence, it's the "Oh, you think you're so smart, huh?" that people don't like. Every patient wants their physician to be intelligent, bar no one. They don't want a condescending "You wouldn't understand what I'm talking about" physician.

Same goes for the president. Who wants a dumb president? No one. They may think that someone with less formal education has better "street smarts" though, and that may be seen as a positive.

But taken out of the context of elections this highlights, that in general, intelligence is perceived as a negative.

No. Just the "I'm smarter than you" attitude.

 

[freckolis]

My guess is that other traits people are often rewarded for (beauty, physique, etc.) seem to have more of a defined line between sides. Of course a person can exercise, change the color of their hair, or even change their face with plastic surgery if they have the $$$, but you can't actually change your genetics. People can blame them and then work with what they have and that's it.

I think intelligence is taboo because there will always be individuals who blame circumstances on their shortcomings in that department. Politicians can't promise a prettier face for all of their voters, but they can work to improve the overall school system.

I think the biggest problem is that most voters want to relate to whoever they decide to put their faith into. If a person is hyper-sensitive about how smart they feel vs. how smart they could have been... I'm rambling now, but I guess I'm trying to say it all boils down to jealously.

 

[BA11]

But taken out of the context of elections this highlights, that in general, intelligence is perceived as a negative.

Maybe it's wanting to be perceived as intelligent and then making decisions half the population deems unintelligent is what does it.

I've never seen anyone mock a true genius because he is a genius. True genius, IMO, involves both having intelligence and using it in a productive way. Many politicians either arent particuarly bright or don't use their intelligence to fulfill the best interests of the public, only to achieve their ambition.

 

[kduck]

It's not the intelligence, it's the "Oh, you think you're so smart, huh?" that people don't like. Every patient wants their physician to be intelligent, bar no one. They don't want a condescending "You wouldn't understand what I'm talking about" physician.

Same goes for the president. Who wants a dumb president? No one. They may think that someone with less formal education has better "street smarts" though, and that may be seen as a positive.

No. Just the "I'm smarter than you" attitude.

+1. Nobody really thinks intelligence is a negative. All parents brag about their smart children, and all parents value good grades (though to varying extents). Nobody is proud of their child for making Fs or being in remedial classes or whatever. People may resent the way that very educated people tend to look down at the world from an ivory tower, but intelligence itself is not the problem.

 

[yellowfish]

My question really is why should it be taboo to recognize that certain people are smarter than others? We praise people for genetic gifts like beauty and athleticism constantly, while recognizing that we could never be that fast or naturally good looking. Why then is intelligence being turned into a negative? Some people are just smarter than others.

Intelligence is less tangible than athleticism or beauty, and to an extent, immeasurable. Also, there are many different kinds of intelligence and the word itself is not well-defined and often abused or improperly applied. It makes sense for people to be more wary of proclamations that certain people are inherently "more intelligent". Politicians, as you have pointed out, have also attempted to construe the word in a negative light, especially with regards to their opponents.

 

[Long Way to Go]

Maybe it's wanting to be perceived as intelligent and then making decisions half the population deems unintelligent is what does it.

I've never seen anyone mock a true genius because he is a genius. True genius, IMO, involves both having intelligence and using it in a productive way. Many politicians either arent particuarly bright or don't use their intelligence to fulfill the best interests of the public, only to achieve their ambition.

And even if they do, half the population (and/or the people who lobby [outright bribe] politicians) will perceive "fulfilling the best interests of the public" as "royally ****ing up everything".

 

[ppfizenm]

We've gotten to the point where merely putting your intelligence out there is viewed as elitist though.

 

[dd128]

We've gotten to the point where merely putting your intelligence out there is viewed as elitist though.

There just should be no need to put your intelligence out there. If you are smart people tend to know, likewise if you are not. Same with beauty and athleticism. Someone attractive doesn't need to go around telling people about it to become more attractive, and I'm fairly sure the good athletes don't have a need to go around telling everyone how awesome they are.

 

[kduck]

We've gotten to the point where merely putting your intelligence out there is viewed as elitist though.

I do agree with you that just having gone to an elite university or having attained a high level degree can introduce animosity with some people. However, I believe that this can be overcome through acquaintance in most cases. There are always going to be a few crazy elements in society, but that doesn't mean society as a whole sees intelligence as "bad."

 

[sibitrum]

I think this phenomenon might be related to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Those with less intelligence/education/whatever will think they know as much, if not more, than someone who has proven those qualities through their own success.

 

[Owlie]

I've never thought intelligence as a bad thing. I'm definitely no genius, but I am much more intelligent than anyone in my family (including my wife's family). And I'm talking about g-factor, by the way.

However, I have experienced people being vexed whenever I "talk smart" around them. Most people are usually either just impressed or their interest and curiosity is piqued.

Oh, and Steven Hawking may be intelligent, but he really lacks in wisdom.

 

[whatbout2morrow]

Putting your intelligence out there is not elitist. Bragging about your intelligence and trying to prove that you are more intelligent than others is elitist though.

 

[alerk323]

Oh, and Steven Hawking may be intelligent, but he really lacks in wisdom.

Don't mean to derail, just curious, why's that?

 

[ppfizenm]

There just should be no need to put your intelligence out there. If you are smart people tend to know, likewise if you are not. Same with beauty and athleticism. Someone attractive doesn't need to go around telling people about it to become more attractive, and I'm fairly sure the good athletes don't have a need to go around telling everyone how awesome they are.

By putting it out there I don't mean saying something "I am better than you". I am referring to merely doing something that demonstrates your intelligence like winning an award or (gasp) becoming a doctor.

 

[tantacles]

By putting it out there I don't mean saying something "I am better than you". I am referring to merely doing something that demonstrates your intelligence like winning an award or (gasp) becoming a doctor.

You're such an elitist. We can't be friends anymore. Also, I'm telling my mom.

 

[ppfizenm]

You're such an elitist. We can't be friends anymore. Also, I'm telling my mom.

Have her call mine.😎

 

[tantacles]

Have her call mine.😎

You're gonna be in soooooooo much trouble.

 

[ppfizenm]

You're gonna be in soooooooo much trouble.

that brings up an interesting point though. In grade school intelligence is looked down on.

 

[tantacles]

that brings up an interesting point though. In grade school intelligence is looked down on.

Neener neener neener.

 

[BA11]

We've gotten to the point where merely putting your intelligence out there is viewed as elitist though.

If you have to put your own intelligence out there you probably arent as intelligent as you think you are. Intelligence is a very noticable trait.

 

[tantacles]

If you have to put your own intelligence out there you probably arent as intelligent as you think you are. Intelligence is a very noticable trait.

I don't think he was referring to putting your intelligence out there for THE SAKE of putting it out there. I think he was saying that people who display intelligence, even indirectly, are often maligned for it., and their detractors often use the word "elitist" to gain the upper hand.

 

[BA11]

I don't think he was referring to putting your intelligence out there for THE SAKE of putting it out there. I think he was saying that people who display intelligence, even indirectly, are often maligned for it., and their detractors often use the word "elitist" to gain the upper hand.

But again, there's a difference between "listen to me because I'm smarter than you" and "listen to me because *valid reasoning*". People don't like being talked down to as if the politician knows better than them, they like answers and solutions.

Yes, some negative campaign ads are illogical and point out invisible flaws, but that's politics and not general society.

 

[ppfizenm]

By putting it out there I don't mean saying something "I am better than you". I am referring to merely doing something that demonstrates your intelligence like winning an award or (gasp) becoming a doctor.

If you have to put your own intelligence out there you probably arent as intelligent as you think you are. Intelligence is a very noticable trait.

read all the posts before commenting

 

[mmmcdowe]

Fortunately, we don't only consider financial matters when choosing a president.

Exactly, we use much better factors such as attractiveness, height, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and marital status.

 

[Nymphicus]

Exactly, we use much better factors such as attractiveness, height, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and marital status.

🙁

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I believe both to be intelligent men, just as I believe Bush is an intelligent man. That was my point. Getting C's in various courses throughout one's academic career does not an idiot make, yet Clinton was made out to be a yokel inbred from Arkansas by republicans and Bush was the "idiot" who couldnt say nuclear right because his ten gallon hat was cutting off blood flow according to democrats. None however are "geniuses" by any stretch and all three are not capable of making incredibly educated financial decisions without advisors. Some men, like Newt, are regarded are gurus in various political fields. He would dance circles around Bush or Obama in a financial debate, it wouldnt even be fair.

your initial claim was that Barack Obama's academic record is comparable to GWB. To wit-

Likewise nobody has ever accused Barack Obama of being an mental midget in public (only that he thinks he is smarter than he is), but his academic records show he isnt any more book smart than George Bush or Bill Clinton were and both have been called stupid their entire adult lives by competitors.

The response above re: BO & Clinton specifically proved you wrong. In addition, BO had no legacy to lean on, something that cannot be denied worked to GWB's favor. Your claim about Gingrich 'dancing circles' around Obama in a financial debate is completely baseless. Lastly, I'm pretty certain a Rhodes scholar (Clinton) and a self-made editor of the Harvard Law Review (BO) will test at or close to the genius range in the IQ scale, for whatever that's worth.

One last thought - you mention intelligence is a very noticeable trait. I agree, and that's why I'm convinced you don't have it.

 

[alerk323]

One last thought - you mention intelligence is a very noticeable trait. I agree, and that's why I'm convinced you don't have it.

haha oh sdn how you never fail to disappoint me by providing respectful discussions to read.

 

[Owlie]

Don't mean to derail, just curious, why's that?

This matter would be specifically about opinion. He has knowledge, but he lacks the ability to apply his perceptions in keeping with his understanding, because he paints his understanding with a limited and flawed brush. He changes his mind on his beliefs seemingly based on how he feels about something, and not absolute truths. While it's great his mind is creative, there lacks a particular foundation of principles (and I'm not talking about having a lack of educational science).

If you disagree with this, that's fine! It's just my opinion.

 

[BA11]

Exactly, we use much better factors such as attractiveness, height, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and marital status.

All true and part of the problem with our government these days. Rarely does the "best" candidate win anything anymore, if for no other reason than all the BS keeps the best from ever running.

 

[BA11]

One last thought - you mention intelligence is a very noticeable trait. I agree, and that's why I'm convinced you don't have it.

I forgot true genius lies in the ability to call others idiots over the internet.

 

[45408]

I forgot true genius lies in the ability to call others idiots over the internet.

BOOM. Head shot.

 

[tantacles]

Exactly, we use much better factors such as attractiveness, height, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and marital status.

I was referring more to support for social issues. Gay rights and abortion rights tend to get my vote over economics.

However, now that you mention it, I'd tap Obama if he said "Yes, we can."

 

[BA11]

I was referring more to support for social issues. Gay rights and abortion rights tend to get my vote over economics.

I think once politics shifts to more concern over the economy and trying to limit our spending and becomes less about social issues we'll all be better off. Gay rights and abortion are relevant but ultimately don't affect the long-term viability of this nation. Our blank check spending does.

The gay marriage thing is especially annoying. It should be up to each individual state and I wish each state would just approve it so we can all STFU about it. It's so old and annoying and doesnt need to be an issue, but it is because we're too stubborn to let people have sex with whatever consenting adult they want.

However, now that you mention it, I'd tap Obama if he said "Yes, we can."

 

[ppfizenm]

I think once politics shifts to more concern over the economy and trying to limit our spending and becomes less about social issues we'll all be better off. Gay rights and abortion are relevant but ultimately don't affect the long-term viability of this nation. Our blank check spending does.

The gay marriage thing is especially annoying. It should be up to each individual state and I wish each state would just approve it so we can all STFU about it. It's so old and annoying and doesnt need to be an issue, but it is because we're too stubborn to let people have sex with whatever consenting adult they want.

Enlighten me. How could politics talk shift to focus more heavily on the economy? Right now that is pretty much all anyone talks about.

 

[Owlie]

Enlighten me. How could politics talk shift to focus more heavily on the economy? Right now that is pretty much all anyone talks about.

I agree. Not that it's all we talk about, but we do talk about it a lot.

And I could honestly care less about what political parties talk about. Talk is cheap, and often differs greatly from what they do. It's like a magic act. They distract you with one thing (their voice) while they sleight of hand over there, so you don't see what they're really doing.

 

[mmmcdowe]

I was referring more to support for social issues. Gay rights and abortion rights tend to get my vote over economics.

However, now that you mention it, I'd tap Obama if he said "Yes, we can."

Oh I wasn't implying that you used such factors, merely that americans as a whole are terrible at choosing their own issues.

As for social issues, I wish the government would stop getting involved in a lot of it (but not all). For example, howabout we just get rid of marriage licenses all together and just give out domestic partnerships. Let society deal with marriag on its own.

 

[ppfizenm]

Oh I wasn't implying that you used such factors, merely that americans as a whole are terrible at choosing their own issues.

As for social issues, I wish the government would stop getting involved in a lot of it. For example, howabout we just get rid of marriage licenses all together and just give out domestic partnerships. Let society deal with marriag on its own.

Or we could just insert language into the constitution to give gays all legal rights and protections under the law. Then we would never have to talk about it again.