What about the protective role of social intelligence? You only discuss this very obliquely, if at all—but I’m willing to bet that social skills are ultimately more defensive than offensive. Give me a workplace full of highly socially skilled people—where attempts at manipulation (either by “natural” sociopaths or people trying to apply their skills in opportunistic ways) can be routinely detected and perhaps deterred—and I’ll show you a workplace that’s better and more polite than one that’s full of socially awkward geeks.
Worth looking into, but my sense is it has no protective role. Social intelligence is not a conscious thing. The “manipulators” usually don’t know that they’re manipulating. Being able to manipulate other people doesn’t seem to protect them from being manipulated in the same ways.
The “manipulators” usually don’t know that they’re manipulating.
Evidence? I think there is an instinctual nature to it, but I think they’re aware.
The people who aren’t aware are the “intelligent”.
Some people have that natural motivation for social dominance, some don’t, and both sides tend to model the other guy using themselves as the archtype. This makes the dominators fight harder, and the social pacifists fight not at all, not even perceiving that they are being attacked.
Being able to manipulate other people doesn’t seem to protect them from being manipulated in the same ways.
I’d just call that losing to someone who is better.
I suspect that a lot of people who aren’t socially dominant in the traditional sense optimize for prestige (higher education to gain income, advertising intellect by getting a Phd, picking up an instrument, etc.) , which can be status enhancing, and thus still a display of dominance.
Of course, since the average person cares about social jockeying, sychophantism, and wit at the expense of others, it may help to learn some of these skills if your goal is to move up in the workplace.
I think the relevant aspect of optimizing for presitige or status is in whose eyes is the status measured. Social intelligence, much like epistemic intelligence, often comes at a price.
My sister and I would talk about compulsive analysis—just having some inconsistency bug you, and feel the need to resolve it. An obsessive compulsive disorder, where you just have to straighten out ideas and figure things out. Naturally, with that compulsion, you will tend to figure out a lot of things that others don’t, just as someone with OCD will have a tidy house. (I’m going by the stereotype of OCD as an example, don’t know how much the generalization is true).
I think that’s much the same with the social dominators, status seekers, and approval seekers. They just feel the need more. Other’s approval counts to them. Their status in other people’s eyes matters to them. They’re motivated by it. Not surprisingly, with all that motivation, they work on it more, and get better at it.
Alternatively, one could chase status, but in one’s own eyes. Wanting to be the kind of person you respect. One can go further, and just do what you want to do.
The phrase “just not that into you” applies to these last two types in ways alien to the social status seekers, just as “I don’t need to know” is alien to the epistemically compulsive.
Evidence? I think there is an instinctual nature to it, but I think they’re aware.
I have no evidence, sorry. There are some studies of sociopaths, who IIRC are usually thought to be aware of what they’re doing, but I don’t know how relevant that is (is sociopathology a “spectrum disorder”, really just a personality dimension; or is it an organic brain dysfunction?)
What about the protective role of social intelligence? You only discuss this very obliquely, if at all—but I’m willing to bet that social skills are ultimately more defensive than offensive. Give me a workplace full of highly socially skilled people—where attempts at manipulation (either by “natural” sociopaths or people trying to apply their skills in opportunistic ways) can be routinely detected and perhaps deterred—and I’ll show you a workplace that’s better and more polite than one that’s full of socially awkward geeks.
Worth looking into, but my sense is it has no protective role. Social intelligence is not a conscious thing. The “manipulators” usually don’t know that they’re manipulating. Being able to manipulate other people doesn’t seem to protect them from being manipulated in the same ways.
Evidence? I think there is an instinctual nature to it, but I think they’re aware.
The people who aren’t aware are the “intelligent”.
Some people have that natural motivation for social dominance, some don’t, and both sides tend to model the other guy using themselves as the archtype. This makes the dominators fight harder, and the social pacifists fight not at all, not even perceiving that they are being attacked.
I’d just call that losing to someone who is better.
I suspect that a lot of people who aren’t socially dominant in the traditional sense optimize for prestige (higher education to gain income, advertising intellect by getting a Phd, picking up an instrument, etc.) , which can be status enhancing, and thus still a display of dominance.
Of course, since the average person cares about social jockeying, sychophantism, and wit at the expense of others, it may help to learn some of these skills if your goal is to move up in the workplace.
I think the relevant aspect of optimizing for presitige or status is in whose eyes is the status measured. Social intelligence, much like epistemic intelligence, often comes at a price.
My sister and I would talk about compulsive analysis—just having some inconsistency bug you, and feel the need to resolve it. An obsessive compulsive disorder, where you just have to straighten out ideas and figure things out. Naturally, with that compulsion, you will tend to figure out a lot of things that others don’t, just as someone with OCD will have a tidy house. (I’m going by the stereotype of OCD as an example, don’t know how much the generalization is true).
I think that’s much the same with the social dominators, status seekers, and approval seekers. They just feel the need more. Other’s approval counts to them. Their status in other people’s eyes matters to them. They’re motivated by it. Not surprisingly, with all that motivation, they work on it more, and get better at it.
Alternatively, one could chase status, but in one’s own eyes. Wanting to be the kind of person you respect. One can go further, and just do what you want to do.
The phrase “just not that into you” applies to these last two types in ways alien to the social status seekers, just as “I don’t need to know” is alien to the epistemically compulsive.
I have no evidence, sorry. There are some studies of sociopaths, who IIRC are usually thought to be aware of what they’re doing, but I don’t know how relevant that is (is sociopathology a “spectrum disorder”, really just a personality dimension; or is it an organic brain dysfunction?)