I can think of at least two high status individuals I’ve met in the corporate world that displayed a wide range of intelligence depending on their audience.
To some people they would be very direct, ask the right questions, give the right advice, and be generally intelligent.
To others they would display less competence, ask obvious or stupid questions, and generally seem less intelligent.
I always supposed the latter cases were either:
A display of “Such minor details are of no concern to me; I will play dumb to assert my status”
“Let’s see who will challenge me when I say something stupid, and then I’ll know who the smart/bold ones are in this group”
What is actually said, word choice, etc. should never be assumed to be 100 % indicative of the speaker’s actual motivations in asking a question or making a statement. I play dumb all the time, for a variety of reasons. The majority of those reasons have to do with making the other person comfortable and/or seeking information that would otherwise not come my way.
I propose a further hypothesis: high-status people have internalized Laws 4, 5, and 46 of the 48 Laws of Power, but especially Law 1: Never Outshine the Master.
After years of practice in switching between seeming competent relative to underlings and less so relative to superiors, they develop the ability to segregate audiences as you described.
I can think of at least two high status individuals I’ve met in the corporate world that displayed a wide range of intelligence depending on their audience.
Which audiences elicited which behaviors? From your hypotheses, it sounds like they were smarter in front of higher status people. But Technologos’s hypothesis is opposite.
I don’t think they acted smarter around higher status people or dumber around low status people.
Smarter around people who were already convinced of their high status and authority, perhaps. And dumber around people whom they knew less well or who knew them less well.
ETA: I never observed them when they were trying to impress their bosses, though.
I can think of at least two high status individuals I’ve met in the corporate world that displayed a wide range of intelligence depending on their audience.
To some people they would be very direct, ask the right questions, give the right advice, and be generally intelligent.
To others they would display less competence, ask obvious or stupid questions, and generally seem less intelligent.
I always supposed the latter cases were either:
A display of “Such minor details are of no concern to me; I will play dumb to assert my status”
“Let’s see who will challenge me when I say something stupid, and then I’ll know who the smart/bold ones are in this group”
What is actually said, word choice, etc. should never be assumed to be 100 % indicative of the speaker’s actual motivations in asking a question or making a statement. I play dumb all the time, for a variety of reasons. The majority of those reasons have to do with making the other person comfortable and/or seeking information that would otherwise not come my way.
I propose a further hypothesis: high-status people have internalized Laws 4, 5, and 46 of the 48 Laws of Power, but especially Law 1: Never Outshine the Master.
After years of practice in switching between seeming competent relative to underlings and less so relative to superiors, they develop the ability to segregate audiences as you described.
Which audiences elicited which behaviors? From your hypotheses, it sounds like they were smarter in front of higher status people. But Technologos’s hypothesis is opposite.
I don’t think they acted smarter around higher status people or dumber around low status people.
Smarter around people who were already convinced of their high status and authority, perhaps. And dumber around people whom they knew less well or who knew them less well.
ETA: I never observed them when they were trying to impress their bosses, though.