Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!hplabs!pesnta!peora!jer
From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Skipping grades -> Undersociali
Message-ID: <2046@peora.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Mar-86 09:44:26 EST
Article-I.D.: peora.2046
Posted: Tue Mar 25 09:44:26 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 07:21:20 EST
References: <1130@burl.UUCP> <26600174@uiucdcs> <2849@reed.UUCP> <1840@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corporation, Orlando, Fl
Lines: 117

> I am very interested in the perception that "smart" kids end up being
> asocial.

Yesterday I wrote a very long essay on this subject in here, but then
decided to cancel it; however, since the cancel mechanism often doesn't
work right, it may be you've read my essay already.  If so you can skip this
posting, which is [or, was supposed to be] much shorter.

This posting bothers me a good bit, I must admit, because it seems to be
the sort of thing that *causes* exactly what it is claiming to comment on.
Consider these phrases; I apologise for their length, but I have edited
them down as much as possible without losing the meanings I want to comment
on.

> ... it made me think that those of us who may sound the wisest on the net
> ... may not necessarily be the ones that are most happy with the actual
> results of practicing their social skills.

> there are a couple of reasons that such people have a tendency to blame
> their social ineptitude on their IQs.

> Another is that children who avoid socializing by diving into academics
> are frequently channeled into the sciences because that is one of the
> areas that can provide some ego support in an otherwise uncarring world:
> I mean to say that the sciences pre-select for social incompetence.

> I would guess that about 30% of the students [at CalTech] were noticeably
> socially backward... [but] Most of the Caltech people I knew were
> remarkably normal ...

> I have known seveal social bumpkins who just needed to stop worrying and
> being so self-conscious: sometimes we all need to be gentler with
> ourselves.

If you take the above phrases out of the bulk of the posting, you find the
claim that "a lot" of "high IQ" people are "social bumpkins" who actually
got into the sciences because they were "socially incompetent"; and that
in the end everyone's all exactly alike, because anybody who may appear to
be "wise" or "bright" actually may have inner dissatisfactions.

This seems a very prejudicial viewpoint, and a very discouraging one.
I made an attempt yesterday at explaining why I thought this was so, and
ended up concluding that doing so would probably only lead to lengthy
controversy.  Also, the only person who I showed the explanation to thought
it was "too long".

It's hard in a few words to explain a subject this complex without resorting
to trite, superficial truisms that I don't think actually have much
bearing on the subject.  Basically,

a) I agree that considerable social pressures and social ostracism often
affect children who are perceived by their peers as "bright".  There is
considerable pressure to conform among children, much more so than among
adults, and this conformity includes conforming to norms of intelligence
and academic success.  However,

b) People react to these things in different ways.  I think back on the
"bright" or "intelligent" people I knew in school, and find that there was
a wide variety of coping mechanisms: some tried to hide the fact that they
were academically successful (I noticed this even in college among some
people); some developed a staunch individualism, believing that they were
right and that they had a higher commitment that required some sacrifices;
and some simply conformed.

c) As a result, there tends to be a continuum of socialization among such
people, although this socialization tends to vary more than it does among
people as a whole.

d) Such people tend to have different attitudes towards socialization.
They do things differently, have different interests, and different
attitudes, and this tends to make them be sometimes misperceived as being
asocial.  However, often they are not asocial, though they may be so with
some people who perceive them to be.

My favorite psychologist, Abraham Maslow, devoted his life's work to
studying a group of people who could be characterized as "bright" or
"exceptional" in some form, and I think he came closer to understanding
this phenomenon than a lot of the popular psychologists have done.
Unfortunately, as a result of his work he accidentally created a cult of
"self actualization", something that was I think basically counter to what
he was trying to describe.

Among other things, he found that the people he studied did tend to be
somewhat asocial, although some had made an effort to socialize themselves
with varying degrees of success; yet he found that such people had deep
and complex values with regard to their interpersonal relationships,
although they tended to differ from what was considered the norm -- in
particular, that they often had the attitude that a few good friends were
much better than dissipating oneself on socialization with a large number
of distant acquaintances.  He did not find this impaired the people in any
way; in fact, he characterized them in his writing as "fully functioning
human beings".  By contrast, he noted the loss of hope and childlike
brilliance in the majority of people in the world; this is something that
has also been noted by a number of other people, from Thoreau ("the mass
of men lead lives of quiet desperation" and "I never met a man who was
truly awake.  How could I have looked him in the face?") to the "basket
case" character Alison of the movie The Breakfast Club, who observes that
"When you grow up, your heart dies."

So here I've written over a hundred lines of posting again trying to
explain this idea, and with probably not much more success.  In essence, I
think it is unwise to ridicule or "advise" people who seem "asocial," at
least unless it is clearly a pathological case.  People have an almost
infinite variety, and it is absurd to try to claim that the norm is what
is desirable.  Neither is it wise to judge a person by how "happy" or
"satisfied" they are with themselves, or with their social interactions.
One does not have much motivation to improve oneself if one is already
content with oneself; which is why people who have had only satisfying
relationships all their lives often tend to be quite shallow individuals.
One learns most by hardship, and sometimes one must be content with
hardship if one wishes to improve oneself.  You do not have to improve
yourself, or make yourself a better person, but you have no justification
for condemning others who do aspire to do so.
-- 
E. Roskos

"It's Halley's comet!"