As I see it, people are having a hard time dealing with intellectual inequalities and frequently react as if they are going to equate to rights inequalities.
Yes, I agree that this is frequently true.
We also frequently react that way to wealth inequalities, power inequalities, and various other things that we fear (not always without justification) will allow a privileged minority to become a threat to us.
This leads them to oppress.
It isn’t clear to me that “oppress” is a clearly or consistently defined term here, but I agree with you that this sometimes leads us to act against the groups we see as potential threats.
Do you have observations that would be relevant to my perspective
The thing that most jumps out at me is that we seem to keep reiterating the same rhetorical pattern.
You point out scenarios where intelligent people end up in potential conflict with those around them because of their intelligence. I agree that that happens sometimes, and add that it’s a special case of a more general relationship that isn’t especially about intelligence. You continue to discuss how raw a deal intelligent people are given, from a slightly different perspective.
It mostly leaves me with the feeling that we don’t really disagree about any of the stuff that’s actually being said explicitly, but that there’s something more fundamental that isn’t getting said explicitly, about which we do disagree.
If I had to guess, I would guess that you’re motivated to maximize the relative status of intelligent people, and you’re framing the situation in terms of how oppressed intelligent people are in order to justify doing that, and you see my responses as interfering with that framing.
Good insight, TheOtherDave, it is time to clarify. I don’t want to “maximize the relative status” of anyone—I don’t believe in status. Oh, sure I see lots of people imagining one another to be at different points on a mental model, and I don’t deny that people behave that way, but to me, that doesn’t mean the mental model is at all accurate to reality. To me, they’re just imagining this—status is just a bias.
Also, I think the fact that people perceive intelligence as a “high status” thing is the entire problem. So unless “maximize the relative status” was meant more like “optimize the relative status” I don’t think that’d be a real solution.
I don’t really see your responses as interfering with the framing, but like you said they’re indicating that some clearer point needs to be made.
Here are some ideas:
No sort of oppression happens all the time, but that doesn’t mean a group is not oppressed.
I think the oppression of gifted people should recognized. I think people on both sides need to realize that most of it is unintentional. I think we need to knock it off with this status business, as a species, recognize that we all have rights regardless of intellectual abilities, and quit acting paranoid and grappling for control with one another.
Seeing this power struggle and status madness makes me sick to my stomach. Every time I see it, I have to question why I bother to make a difference if people are going to behave like this.
I see lots of people imagining one another to be at different points on a mental model, and I don’t deny that people behave that way, but to me, that doesn’t mean the mental model is at all accurate to reality.
I don’t think what you’re saying here makes sense. The “status model” only makes claims about people’s behavior. If people behave as though status were a thing, that makes status a thing.
By way of analogy, beauty is also imaginary in the sense that status is imaginary. Lots of people imagine each other to be at different points on the beauty scale, and act accordingly, but there’s nothing objective out there corresponding to beauty. Sure, there’s things that lots of people would agree are beautiful—symmetric faces, lack of disfiguring scars, whatever—but these are arbitrary—there’s nothing intrinsically beautiful about them. (Similarly, wearing a gold watch or whatever might be a sign of status, and is also arbitrary.)
Would you say that you “don’t believe in beauty” in the same way that you “don’t believe in status”? If not, what are the relevant differences?
I think we need to knock it off with this status business, as a species, recognize that we all have rights regardless of intellectual abilities, and quit acting paranoid and grappling for control with one another.
(nods) Sure, sounds great. Two questions:
Do you agree any more or less with that phrase if I remove the clause “regardless of intellectual abilities”? (Followup: if you don’t, what is that clause doing there?)
Do you have any strategies in mind for achieving that state?
I think the oppression of gifted people should recognized.
I recognize that gifted people are sometimes subjected to actions taken against their interests, which we can describe as “oppression” if we want to, though that word has other connotations in other contexts I don’t think apply to the condition of gifted people.
That said, I don’t care very much. Do you think I ought to care more? If so, why?
Yes, I agree that this is frequently true.
We also frequently react that way to wealth inequalities, power inequalities, and various other things that we fear (not always without justification) will allow a privileged minority to become a threat to us.
It isn’t clear to me that “oppress” is a clearly or consistently defined term here, but I agree with you that this sometimes leads us to act against the groups we see as potential threats.
The thing that most jumps out at me is that we seem to keep reiterating the same rhetorical pattern.
You point out scenarios where intelligent people end up in potential conflict with those around them because of their intelligence. I agree that that happens sometimes, and add that it’s a special case of a more general relationship that isn’t especially about intelligence. You continue to discuss how raw a deal intelligent people are given, from a slightly different perspective.
It mostly leaves me with the feeling that we don’t really disagree about any of the stuff that’s actually being said explicitly, but that there’s something more fundamental that isn’t getting said explicitly, about which we do disagree.
If I had to guess, I would guess that you’re motivated to maximize the relative status of intelligent people, and you’re framing the situation in terms of how oppressed intelligent people are in order to justify doing that, and you see my responses as interfering with that framing.
But that’s just a guess.
Good insight, TheOtherDave, it is time to clarify. I don’t want to “maximize the relative status” of anyone—I don’t believe in status. Oh, sure I see lots of people imagining one another to be at different points on a mental model, and I don’t deny that people behave that way, but to me, that doesn’t mean the mental model is at all accurate to reality. To me, they’re just imagining this—status is just a bias.
Also, I think the fact that people perceive intelligence as a “high status” thing is the entire problem. So unless “maximize the relative status” was meant more like “optimize the relative status” I don’t think that’d be a real solution.
I don’t really see your responses as interfering with the framing, but like you said they’re indicating that some clearer point needs to be made.
Here are some ideas:
No sort of oppression happens all the time, but that doesn’t mean a group is not oppressed.
I think the oppression of gifted people should recognized. I think people on both sides need to realize that most of it is unintentional. I think we need to knock it off with this status business, as a species, recognize that we all have rights regardless of intellectual abilities, and quit acting paranoid and grappling for control with one another.
Seeing this power struggle and status madness makes me sick to my stomach. Every time I see it, I have to question why I bother to make a difference if people are going to behave like this.
I don’t think what you’re saying here makes sense. The “status model” only makes claims about people’s behavior. If people behave as though status were a thing, that makes status a thing.
By way of analogy, beauty is also imaginary in the sense that status is imaginary. Lots of people imagine each other to be at different points on the beauty scale, and act accordingly, but there’s nothing objective out there corresponding to beauty. Sure, there’s things that lots of people would agree are beautiful—symmetric faces, lack of disfiguring scars, whatever—but these are arbitrary—there’s nothing intrinsically beautiful about them. (Similarly, wearing a gold watch or whatever might be a sign of status, and is also arbitrary.)
Would you say that you “don’t believe in beauty” in the same way that you “don’t believe in status”? If not, what are the relevant differences?
(nods) Sure, sounds great. Two questions:
Do you agree any more or less with that phrase if I remove the clause “regardless of intellectual abilities”? (Followup: if you don’t, what is that clause doing there?)
Do you have any strategies in mind for achieving that state?
I recognize that gifted people are sometimes subjected to actions taken against their interests, which we can describe as “oppression” if we want to, though that word has other connotations in other contexts I don’t think apply to the condition of gifted people.
That said, I don’t care very much.
Do you think I ought to care more?
If so, why?