Hiding IQ is the rule not the exception, do you agree with that?
Depends on the social group. I hang out in a number of social circles where signalling high intelligence is highly endorsed. But, sure, I agree that’s the exception and not the rule; in most social circles, signalling high intelligence is seen as a status grab.
But when something isn’t okay to talk about in most contexts, that’s how we know that there’s a widespread bias that can be said to be cultural. Do you agree with this?
Sure.
What if I introduced myself with “Hi, I’m Sue. I like sports and I am a doctor. What about you?” That would be interpreted as talking about a difference you have that affects who you are, not a boast, am I right?
Again, that depends on the status implications of those claims in the context of the group you’re introducing yourself to. There are many contexts in which introducing yourself as a doctor would be seen as boastful, and many contexts in which it would not. (There are few contexts where introducing yourself as liking sports would be seen as boastful.)
To be clear, you do agree with me, then, that there is a cultural bias against talking about giftedness and IQ—am I correct?
I would agree that there are contexts where talking about my giftedness and my high IQ is seen as a status grab, and therefore rejected. Many of those are contexts in which talking about giftedness and IQ in general is seen as OK.
If talking about high IQ and giftedness are usually seen as a status marker, this makes them socially unacceptable to talk about most of the time
Again: where high IQ and giftedness are seen as status markers, talking about my high IQ and my giftedness is usually unacceptable. (Similarly, talking about my wealth or my really beautiful spouse or various other status markers is usually unacceptable.)
Do you agree that when [there is a group of people that have significant social differences, and it is socially unacceptable to talk about the difference] it is sign of oppression:
I agree that these things are frequently present where oppression exists. But they are also frequently present where oppression does not exist.
For example, if I’m a white-collar millionaire participating in a social group that is primarily lower-middle-class blue-collar workers, that’s a significant social difference that is socially unacceptable to talk about, but I would not agree that I was being oppressed, or that millionaires are generally being oppressed by blue-collar workers.
Relative levels of power and status matter, here.
Do you agree that gifted / high IQ people meet the two definitions above of having significant social differences, and that it is considered socially unacceptable for them to talk freely about their differences?
In many contexts, yes.
If so, then does this qualify as a form of oppression?
If talking about high IQ and giftedness are usually seen as a status marker, this makes them socially unacceptable to talk about most of the time
Again: where high IQ and giftedness are seen as status markers, talking about my high IQ and my giftedness is usually unacceptable. (Similarly, talking about my wealth or my really beautiful spouse or various other status markers is usually unacceptable.)
You make my verbiage look sloppy. (:
Sorry for seeming to ignore this comment for a few weeks. I was busy.
Right now the way I’m seeing this is that because IQ differences are not seen as something that can cause a person a prolific number of differences that are socially relevant for lots of things other than status, it’s often perceived as a status grab when it’s not.
The result was that he was accused (in the context of the experiment, by people who, I realize, probably do not literally believe these things) of lying by Alicorn and gwern and later suspected to be a psychopath by gwern and shminux.
I was the only one that showed willingness to entertain the idea that OrphanWilde might not be a liar or a psychopath. I suppose, technically that’s not oppression against people you believe to be gifted, it’s discouragement toward people you believe not to be gifted. However, what happens when people have the same attitude of not believing other types of people about their differences? “Oh you’re not really homosexual, let’s send you to the psychologist and have that fixed.” They may have good intentions but the result is definitely oppressive. If people jump to conclusions about a group of people—even the conclusion that the specific individuals in question aren’t part of the group—then those assumptions can oppress the group in question.
Then there’s the fact that 50% of gifted children in America are never given an IQ test, yet they require special education to prevent them from developing problems like learned helplessness due to being placed in the wrong environment.
Terman did a study that challenged commonly held beliefs that gifted people tended to be ugly, and have a lot of problems, and revealed various myths. That was in 1921, but there are still echos of that mentality—people frequently associate negative things with giftedness as if trying to balance things out and make everyone equal again on some imaginary scale—when we shouldn’t be viewing our equality any differently regardless of intellectual differences anyway.
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.
This leads them to oppress.
Do you have observations that would be relevant to my perspective, supportive or unsupportive?
OrphanWilde was only doing an experiment. I didn’t mean to say those guys were serious about their accusations. They behaved that way in the context of the experiment. Most likely they do know better than to take the experiment literally. I realize this. (:
I hate pointing out the obvious, but I guess I have to now. edits my post
Here gwern states that someone possessing transcendent charm is not sufficient evidence for one to conclude that they possess a 200+ IQ. (He mentions other possibilities of them having a “mere” 140+ IQ or them being a psychopath.)
Here gwern states that the world contains more psychopaths than geniuses.
Here is a well-done ramble about the overlap between psychopathy and genius.
I cannot find any post by schminux that would explain why you think he was pretending to accuse OrphanWilde of being a psychopath.
Now to clarify: I am holding that gwern and schminux never publicly suspected OrphanWilde of being a psychopath. I am further holding that gwern and schminux never publicly pretended to suspect OrphanWilde of being a psychopath. These events did not occur, nor did events resembling them occur. Thus, this:
later suspected to be a psychopath by gwern and shminux
is almost a complete non sequitur, apropos of nothing.
You can’t find those because some wonderfully helpful person decided to hide my post. Search for “comment score below threshold” and look inside of there for “psychopath”.
Considering that the posts I linked to were descendents of your post (I assume you were referring to this one?), it would be safe for you to assume that I had read it. (I also do not filter posts by karma value.)
Is there, in fact, a post that you think would support the claim:
Either gwern or shminux either publicly suspected or pretended to suspect OrphanWilde of being a sociopath.
I can’t be certain, but it’s possible that the post which led to shminux’ inclusion on that list was this one—in which shminux quoted gwerm’s conclusion that a gifted conversationalist is at least as likely to be a psychopath as a genius.
There’s likely no single individual involved, wonderfully helpful or otherwise. If a comment dropped below the default display threshold, it’s probably because three more people operating independently downvoted the comment than upvoted it.
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?
Depends on the social group. I hang out in a number of social circles where signalling high intelligence is highly endorsed. But, sure, I agree that’s the exception and not the rule; in most social circles, signalling high intelligence is seen as a status grab.
Sure.
Again, that depends on the status implications of those claims in the context of the group you’re introducing yourself to. There are many contexts in which introducing yourself as a doctor would be seen as boastful, and many contexts in which it would not. (There are few contexts where introducing yourself as liking sports would be seen as boastful.)
I would agree that there are contexts where talking about my giftedness and my high IQ is seen as a status grab, and therefore rejected. Many of those are contexts in which talking about giftedness and IQ in general is seen as OK.
Again: where high IQ and giftedness are seen as status markers, talking about my high IQ and my giftedness is usually unacceptable. (Similarly, talking about my wealth or my really beautiful spouse or various other status markers is usually unacceptable.)
I agree that these things are frequently present where oppression exists. But they are also frequently present where oppression does not exist.
For example, if I’m a white-collar millionaire participating in a social group that is primarily lower-middle-class blue-collar workers, that’s a significant social difference that is socially unacceptable to talk about, but I would not agree that I was being oppressed, or that millionaires are generally being oppressed by blue-collar workers.
Relative levels of power and status matter, here.
In many contexts, yes.
In some contexts, yes. Not many.
I enjoy your precision.
You make my verbiage look sloppy. (:
Sorry for seeming to ignore this comment for a few weeks. I was busy.
Right now the way I’m seeing this is that because IQ differences are not seen as something that can cause a person a prolific number of differences that are socially relevant for lots of things other than status, it’s often perceived as a status grab when it’s not.
There are also a whole bunch of other problems that, combined, paint a picture of oppression. OrphanWilde did an experiment in this very thread, asking “Actually, let’s try an experiment: My IQ is estimated to be in the vicinity of 220. What is your reaction?”
The result was that he was accused (in the context of the experiment, by people who, I realize, probably do not literally believe these things) of lying by Alicorn and gwern and later suspected to be a psychopath by gwern and shminux.
I was the only one that showed willingness to entertain the idea that OrphanWilde might not be a liar or a psychopath. I suppose, technically that’s not oppression against people you believe to be gifted, it’s discouragement toward people you believe not to be gifted. However, what happens when people have the same attitude of not believing other types of people about their differences? “Oh you’re not really homosexual, let’s send you to the psychologist and have that fixed.” They may have good intentions but the result is definitely oppressive. If people jump to conclusions about a group of people—even the conclusion that the specific individuals in question aren’t part of the group—then those assumptions can oppress the group in question.
Then there’s the fact that 50% of gifted children in America are never given an IQ test, yet they require special education to prevent them from developing problems like learned helplessness due to being placed in the wrong environment.
Terman did a study that challenged commonly held beliefs that gifted people tended to be ugly, and have a lot of problems, and revealed various myths. That was in 1921, but there are still echos of that mentality—people frequently associate negative things with giftedness as if trying to balance things out and make everyone equal again on some imaginary scale—when we shouldn’t be viewing our equality any differently regardless of intellectual differences anyway.
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.
This leads them to oppress.
Do you have observations that would be relevant to my perspective, supportive or unsupportive?
If gwern suspected OrphanWilde of being a sociopath, surely he would have made a PredictionBook post.
But seriously, I’ve read the posts I think you are talking about. Nobody has such suspicions.
OrphanWilde was only doing an experiment. I didn’t mean to say those guys were serious about their accusations. They behaved that way in the context of the experiment. Most likely they do know better than to take the experiment literally. I realize this. (:
I hate pointing out the obvious, but I guess I have to now. edits my post
I apologize for my lack of explicitness.
Here gwern states that someone possessing transcendent charm is not sufficient evidence for one to conclude that they possess a 200+ IQ. (He mentions other possibilities of them having a “mere” 140+ IQ or them being a psychopath.)
Here gwern states that the world contains more psychopaths than geniuses.
Here is a well-done ramble about the overlap between psychopathy and genius.
I cannot find any post by schminux that would explain why you think he was pretending to accuse OrphanWilde of being a psychopath.
Now to clarify: I am holding that gwern and schminux never publicly suspected OrphanWilde of being a psychopath. I am further holding that gwern and schminux never publicly pretended to suspect OrphanWilde of being a psychopath. These events did not occur, nor did events resembling them occur. Thus, this:
is almost a complete non sequitur, apropos of nothing.
You can’t find those because some wonderfully helpful person decided to hide my post. Search for “comment score below threshold” and look inside of there for “psychopath”.
Ctrl-F is helpful if you didn’t know about it.
Considering that the posts I linked to were descendents of your post (I assume you were referring to this one?), it would be safe for you to assume that I had read it. (I also do not filter posts by karma value.)
Is there, in fact, a post that you think would support the claim:
? If so, could you please post a hyperlink?
I can’t be certain, but it’s possible that the post which led to shminux’ inclusion on that list was this one—in which shminux quoted gwerm’s conclusion that a gifted conversationalist is at least as likely to be a psychopath as a genius.
There’s likely no single individual involved, wonderfully helpful or otherwise. If a comment dropped below the default display threshold, it’s probably because three more people operating independently downvoted the comment than upvoted it.
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?