Advice For Hyper Intellectuals

[MysterionMuffles]

On 6/12/2018 at 4:20 PM, barn said:

Please, keep them for those that seek superficiality.

With different words but... yeah, I have that written up on my 'parched itinerary', glad we agreed... again

lmfao ok...yeah I only dropped the cliche because I'm stifling my usual habit of asking too many questions to know the details of someone's life circumstances whether they want to share or not. Usually it's just to let them express themselves, but it sounded like you didn't want to share anything specific and keep it vague so I decided to respect that. But in the end I would have said the same thing but with more specific condolensces and/or action steps in regards to your unique situation. 

So that's kinda why I just said what I said as a less detailed version of what I would have otherwise.

[barn]

5 minutes ago, MysterionMuffles said:

lmfao ok...yeah I only dropped the cliche because I'm stifling my usual habit of asking too many questions to know the details of someone's life circumstances whether they want to share or not.

Hi @MysterionMuffles

Acronyms as such (specific meaning) don't instill a lot of hope when gauging one's empathy levels in broad terms (one's specific circumstances can barely be addressed with general to broad sentiments for starters, lacking visibility or understanding after having acquired corrections/confirmations) ... sort of got reminded of people who are cracking jokes, letting out an insincere laughter in-between points as they wish to explain/bring forth a portion of what's been on their mind. (It could be entirely just my imagination, not trying to claim what I think now is an accurate description of what you'd intended... anyhow, so that you knew.)

Dunno what's your style/approach, if I'm seeing something is rather on the 'deep-dive' side of things, I habitually initiate a pm... you didn't, haven't. It's all good, although it indicates your preference is for 'public', not the discreet.... rules out a few options from the start, again all good... but objectively it is, what it is. How do you see my assessment so far? Makes some sense, rings true?

Given, I had looked at the whole with a different perspective, I could say (too)...

Yeah, dude, no probs. you're cool...Lol

(I could have chosen that too, but that's not me)

21 minutes ago, MysterionMuffles said:

So that's kinda why I just said what I said as a less detailed version of what I would have otherwise. 

This. This, however made more sense to me, appreciated it more than the rest.

It's all good, no hard-feelings or bs., 'each to its own...', thank you (?)

[barn]

43 minutes ago, MysterionMuffles said:

Ah ok I think I get what you mean. Higher IQ would mean making a choice to improve at any task, even unfulfilling ones like working at a warehouse pushing boxes around, and that is what would make them superior in a sense? Is that what you mean? Vs the Average Joe who will do good enough to get by without choosing any better way to go about their job or lives and so they just coast along without any significant improvement along the way.

Interesting...

... It is to me, because seemingly (to me) in your example the more gifted gets a 'kick out of doing the menial' but my intention was to depict a rather neutral scenario (an aftermath) where due to innate capabilities the more gifted could perform the task just as easily (normalised for physique and 'whatnot') if wanted.

Taking the same scenario but in inverse... fail. As in: can convert a van into a camper, the bicycle as a starting vehicle though isn't sufficient frame-wise to be hacked and soldered into a mobile-home, weekend project... you get me?

Also, feelings of superiority for being justly better at something are short-lived for the more gifted... result latter in self-mockery as there's no challenge in running circles around a born-handicapped individual... vanity and malice would be the only reason keeping a more able person choosing to stay in the bounds of 'underachievement'. I'm guessing that is accurate, could be wrong.

54 minutes ago, MysterionMuffles said:

Average Joe who will do good enough to get by without choosing any better way to go about their job or lives and so they just coast along without any significant improvement along the way. 

Average Joe doesn't have doubt, because... when you can't, you should be realistic or waste. Can't imagine a better way how to utilise more, expend less? Stop thinking and appreciate, doesn't worth rolling it further...there's massive wisdom in that, I think.

The reason why I think they can loathe and stay cold to the one with higher potential is because they know exactly what it means 'unfair advantage' and 'immovable object'... that's always crystal clear to them. If it wasn't, they'd be much more open-minded, forgiving people... but are they?

p. s. (I've also met some truly humble and 'hard as a nail', less sophisticated but very, really, truly nice people throughout my life whom I don't want to ever forget or disrespect even if I'll never hear from them again... crazy, right?!)

[RichardY]

On 6/12/2018 at 8:24 PM, MysterionMuffles said:

This is why I think Jordan Peterson's advice in my original post is so important. While you do want to make an impact and inform other people about what you know, you also want to take the time to relax and actually enjoy yourself. I often see intellectuals incredibly infuriated with how people shouldn't be watching the Superbowl and drinking beer when the world is going to shit, and claiming that THESE mindless drones are the ones who are ruining the world. I don't mean to fully engage in just pure self pleasure, but there's a balance to be found for intellectuals. Not sure if I can count myself as one--except for how say, I may seem like one in comparison to a lot of the people I know--but if I were tount myself as one, I would say that there's value in "meaningless" fun. Because at least football loving beer drinkers are still connecting with each other at the level they match up with each other. And sure they will argue over stats and who's the better team...but much like the intellectuals, it's important to find those who can reach your level. Not that it's higher than anyone else, rather it's just A level among several levels in which people operate.

Really, where?

Why not just focus on the mind for the sake of it? Plenty of bodybuilding forums. But, how many decent philosophical ones? Do it purely out of entertainment, desire for certainty.

[MysterionMuffles]

On 6/13/2018 at 7:32 PM, RichardY said:

Really, where?

Why not just focus on the mind for the sake of it? Plenty of bodybuilding forums. But, how many decent philosophical ones? Do it purely out of entertainment, desire for certainty.

Watching the Superbowl and drinking beer was more of an archetype for the general pass time people engage in. It could be any sport or any other "mindless" endeavour an intelligent person would deem as not worth THEIR time, which they are absolutely right about. When FDR had an official chatroom and I used to frequent it, there was a handful of denouncing conversations regarding sports and the weather. And I'm sure if you browse the self knowledge section alone, you would find a fair share of people who express feeling isolated and in need of "more meaningful conversation."

As you said there are plenty of bodybuilding forums, but that's what THEY value. To them, that's what they find meaningful: knowing the right diets and the work out regimines.

For you and everyone else in this thread, and I guess the whole community, value IDEAS and so they frequent this forum.

The point I've been trying to make in this entire thread is this: just like any other human interest, there are people who have more of a proclivity to gravitate toward one category over an other. IE, intelligence over physical longevity. The trouble intellectual people often face is not finding enough people who can comprehend the giant ideas they wish to talk about. This often leads to transformation ego wherein they start to see others as unworthy of their time solely because of the mismatch in interests. 

When in reality, your typical body builder who doesn't listen to The Joe Rogan Experience, would usually see philosophical conversation as a waste of THEIR time. 

When it comes down to it, we are tribal creatures. We just need people in our lives who match our values and interests. Just because we're of the intellectual kind of people, it doesn't make us any better than your typical bodybuilder or hunting enthusiast, or what have you. At the individual level, we all have different values and interests, some of which can criss cross among categories, and so to focus more on attracting like minded people, as opposed to denouncing those who don't share the same level of intellect, is how intellectual people can and should be trying to conduct their lives.

TL:DR 

If you're a chess player, enter a chess club, not the football team.

If you like both, feel free to associate with either one and feel free to expand your social circle accordingly.

Otherwise, football players are not beneath you just because you would destroy them in chess. They would definitely destroy you in football, and unfortunately not in any metaphorical sense.