Intellectual Maturity?

[Deleted member 16771]

I agree with @Gaze that EQ is just as important as IQ. I think in this day and age we are taught to be more sensitive to certain matters. I don't know if that is something to be judged negatively or positively - there sure are aspects of both - so for the time being I'll just take it as it is. However, it happens just as often as not that difficult subjects are not being adressed in growing up and therefore some people don't learn how to deal with it. I guess it will be an effect of EQ more than IQ whether someone is (in)sensitive or starts to react instead of responding.

I don't think political orientation has anything to do with having a discussion of any kind when all parties are equal. I remember having read an article which referenced guidelines to debating (if I were home I would look up which essay they were from) and it said among other things that the best debates are to be had with those who have a completely different perspective from your own; you should be able to listen to one another's viewpoints and accept them as viewpoints, address them instead of just reacting to them - obviously you're allowed to have feelings about these things, but it may not be the best approach in a debate to have them overpower you and perhaps even irrationalise your arguments in the process. I mean, even if you have strong feelings about something that may threaten the rationality of what you say, you might as well just go ahead and say it, right? Those points, too, could be discussed, even if the discussion went a little ways off for a while. Am I right? However, it may exceed the level of self-awareness of some people, as it is hard to acheive, especially face-to-face in real-time discussions. I am only just starting to do that myself, and that is without the f2f-element.

To address your question proper, it may have a bit to do with maturity of the intellectual kind, but mostly for an insufficient validation and education on emotional maturity. Because while it is widely said that people should be accepting and open, people rarely are or develop it in a way that makes their opinions impervious to attacks (or perceived attacks, not saying that you were) or even makes their opinions flexible enough to adapt (to) new perspectives.

Hi Ginny, just on the point about emotional intelligence, I think we ought to make the distinction between 'sensitivity' and 'censorship'. I wouldn't like to feel that something is off the table for discussion 'just because'.

About your points on debating, I think we are of the same mind as to how you should go into them and how it should be done. Perhaps some people, however, are primarily in a threat-seeking mode when getting to know new people. They are concerned with spotting the red flags and uncovering a potential nutcase rather than weighing controversial ideas as an intellectual exercise.

As people raise points here, however, I'm conscious of a balance that has to be struck in being interesting and challenging vs safe and acceptable, and to which side I would rather fall. I think I would probably rather be too challenging/antisocial than too safe, now that I think about it. Its not like I want to give people bad experiences, but that I'd rather risk that in pursuit of a better one.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Based on my experience with doing a PhD but also in general, most people have difficulty debating in a completely detached, dispassionate way. It does not seem to be how most people function, so I would say that yes, it's quite possible that the friends you're used to debating with are a small sample that's not representative of the population at large, including the population of doctoral students. It's good that you have such friends, because debates of that kind are important for the sharpening of the critical mind – but I suspect you'll have to adapt a little bit in your new university.

That being said, there are probably other students you haven't met yet who would be more on your wavelength. I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a small percentage of students that have the same ability that you do of detaching themselves from their positions. Maybe you need a little more time to find them. But with the others, yeah, test the waters first, and consider working on the form of how you say things, too. That's something you're probably potentially very good at thanks to NiFe. You'd be surprised how much the way you say something can impact a person's reaction to it. Adding "I think that...", "I personally would differ...", "Good point, but..." can be so potent, haha.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Cheers, Ren. I'll keep an eye out of course, but I'm also conscious of the whole 'networking' thing you have to do to be successful in academia and therefore navigating these relationships carries more risk than perhaps it should.

Maybe now is to time to seriously consider what sort of persona I want to cultivate?

 

[hn&#Gu]

Hi Ginny, just on the point about emotional intelligence, I think we ought to make the distinction between 'sensitivity' and 'censorship'. I wouldn't like to feel that something is off the table for discussion 'just because'.

About your points on debating, I think we are of the same mind as to how you should go into them and how it should be done. Perhaps some people, however, are primarily in a threat-seeking mode when getting to know new people. They are concerned with spotting the red flags and uncovering a potential nutcase rather than weighing controversial ideas as an intellectual exercise.

As people raise points here, however, I'm conscious of a balance that has to be struck in being interesting and challenging vs safe and acceptable, and to which side I would rather fall. I think I would probably rather be too challenging/antisocial than too safe, now that I think about it. Its not like I want to give people bad experiences, but that I'd rather risk that in pursuit of a better one.

Good way to look at it I think the same but I also think people can be dangerous in their irrational thinking. You could be entirely correct and still bring unnecessary damage to yourself out of pride/stubbornness. Which is a fear mechanism. To weight the balance now that's the fun part.

 

[hn&#Gu]

Also I would like a response from you i value your intellect.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

First of all, congratulations on starting your PhD in history. I hope you'll find it enjoyable and will be successful in your efforts.

I think it makes sense that you would get annoyed. You are interested, -and received proper 'training', in critical thinking and debate, and you are trying to follow the 'rules' for such kind of discourse, and then you find the others aren't playing by the rules.
Perhaps you're even disappointed in your fellow students? As in, come on, we're all PhD students here, surely I can expect a certain level of quality in intellectual interaction from you guys? And then you find out it isn't so. Disappointing, and hence annoying.


No? You are openly discussing a challenging subject. You are venting your feelings and you are looking for other people's viewpoints, answers and solutions. I would say that is very pro-social behavior? What am I missing here. Am I taking this too literally again?


I do not know how one would define 'intellectual maturity'. I would say they are ignorant of proper intellectual conduct, and possibly a tad irrational, but to call that immature...
Perhaps you can recommend them some courses or books on critical thinking?

It is quite possible that they are deeply invested in certain positions that they hold, but feel defenseless against your superior debating skills, and hence fall back on emotion. (Just like I resort to blatant sophistry when someone points out my bullshit. It's only afterwards that I sit down and re-think my inner framework to incorporate this newfound truth.)
If that is the case, to which you can subtly inquire, the books and courses will help them. Hell, you can even make yourself completely defenseless and open and sympathetic and show them "I'm just an ordinary guy who learned some tricks. You can learn this too."

In the same vein you can see this as an interesting challenge to improve your own communication skills. "How to bypass defenses and deliver a message that people will listen to, understand, and accept". If you can get them to be receptive to increasing their critical thinking skills, then you can ask them to help you up your communication game?
Or perhaps open up with that, and then use that to persuade them. The good old help me, help you principle.

But of course, they might not be interested at all, and in that case it's probably best to find other people to intellectually engage with.


You need more xNTP friends.

Your discussion touched on a very interesting subject. Kin selection, group selection, in-group bias, selfish genes... fascinating stuff.
What is your viewpoint on the matter anyway?

Lmao, are you trolling me? I am not going to suggest critical thinking reading for them

'OK, guys, the other night you didn't really come up to snuff, so here're some books to help you improve. I expect better next time, ciao!'

Yeah, it did come up that I was a little disappointed in them... don't get me wrong, they're nice people and are obviously of an intellectual bent, but I was clearly expecting something different.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Several posters hit upon this point so only reiterating it in a way - a friend of mine taught me about the notion of the "emotional tail wagging the rational dog" and the idea here is we do have sensitivities which have an unconscious or irrational basis and which color our perceptions of what should be a neutral topic. What is unconscious is overwhelmingly powerful and as a rule trumps anything under our conscious control. The only way to bring more of this material to the conscious (so that it loses its charge and control over our actions) is to develop self-awareness and that is imo something which is not sufficiently taught in school nor seen as particularly important by large swaths of society. The end effect of this can be individuals walking around with unprocessed unconscious material driving their behavior and lowering their ability to process different view points in impartial or beneficial (to themselves) ways.

TL;DR the problem was likely not the topic which was introduced but what else it may have been connected to in these people's minds which they are unaware of and thus simply reacting instead of responding.

And as @Ren put it using disarming or otherwise "soft" phrasing to introduce your position can be enormously helpful toward getting such a person warmed up to the discussion - because generally they will want to continue it as long as they can get over this initial trap. After all they would realize they feel rather strongly about the subject even if they can't immediately pick up on why.

(with apologies for the overly psychological view point)

I agree with this entirely, which is why I think it is preferable for everything to be out in the open and up for debate.

If something isn't being consciously considered, it's probably being unconsciously considered - certain ideas, therefore, have a tendency to 'sit' in some corner of the mind, unchallenged by critical scrutiny.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I've ended conversation with "we're in different paradigms here, there's no point" that's why I value knowing who your talking to first. It's like assuming a doctor is good based on the paper they have on the wall. You're probably annoyed because you enter into situations assuming your own ultruism/thinking "this is basic stuff". I've had the problem of assuming/projecting certain aspects of my own life as well, they have become innate and sometimes taken for granted in my own reality. Alot of people in this world are not where they should be. Take time to gently figure out how and why they tick. Critical thinking seems to be lost in the age of media.

Yes I think this is part of it - that I just 'assume' they will be on the same page based on how I feel about myself.

But again it comes back to that active-passive balance problem. How much do you want to drive the conversation vs how much do you want to sit back and weigh what others are saying? And how much of one makes you a selfish conversationalist vs how much of the other makes you dull?

I mean, it was me asking their thoughts, I wasn't swinging around my own opinions.

 

[hn&#Gu]

Yes I think this is part of it - that I just 'assume' they will be on the same page based on how I feel about myself.

But again it comes back to that active-passive balance problem. How much do you want to drive the conversation vs how much do you want to sit back and weigh what others are saying? And how much of one makes you a selfish conversationalist vs how much of the other makes you dull?

I mean, it was me asking their thoughts, I wasn't swinging around my own opinions.

I get you. It's hard for me to form a good opinion without being there. Do you feel the need to drive conversation or to be passive, what is your natural state?

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I get you. It's hard for me to form a good opinion without being there. Do you feel the need to drive conversation or to be passive, what is your natural state?

I feel the need to drive conversation, especially if the other people in the party aren't doing that themselves.

 

[hn&#Gu]

I feel the need to drive conversation, especially if the other people in the party aren't doing that themselves.

Why?

 

[Puzzlenuzzle]

To be honest I think that this is a huge problem - the forum has died, if it ever existed, and I sometimes feel like the body politic doesn't behave like one.

The result has been that certain ideas have been driven underground, where they thrive away from scrutiny, rather than being properly discussed in the open. Politicians are therefore able to 'talk in code' to certain constituencies, and the whole thing keeps tending more and more towards a rather artificial political polarisation.

The 'no religion or politics' rule I've always found rather unfortunate. Can we not just scrap it and cultivate the public forum? Or do we need to insist on these secret little echo chambers of uncritical thought for the sake of politeness?

Fair enough.. it's healthy when people can talk openly.. It can lead to amazing growth, opportunity, creation of wonderful life but then.. it can also just end up sometimes doing the total opposite.

What we talk about or portray is merely the mirror of what is going on inside of us - that is literally what you portray into the world and that goes for everyone. Learning to read others, adapting to others and trying to understand them is incredibly important.

Sometimes people just want to chill and relax. People relax in different ways - e.g. at times there won't be an idea coming out of my mouth because I'm tired, I won't be bothered to read a book, I will just want peace, jump in beds in IKEA, baking, etc... But then after few days I won't shut up about ideas etc. You know that but then that also goes for everyone else around us, including you. We all do it in different ways and that goes for those as well. Who knows maybe they are anxious about doing their Phd ? Maybe they miss home? maybe they are adjusting? etc Sometimes people just aren't in the mood and trying to nail down 'why' someone we don't know does what they do is a risky game. Most of the time it might even be wrong as we have no idea of what is going on in peoples lives. (Gut feeling usually is different different!)

When we meet people they aren't just blank canvases. They have stories, scars, memories... history that is completely oblivious to us. That's why its important to adapt to people - there is more than one way to approach people, know their story, understand their limits. There is so much wonderful things you can learn about someone without touching difficult topics! And, usually, we end up learning one or two things about us.

The reason for why I think it is important to take precaution when discussing controversial topics to people I barely know is because I don't know their story. I have no idea what they have lived through or seen. So basically, give people the benefit of the doubt. You've no idea why they reacted that way, assuming why someone does something won't help you unless you look inward and instead of contemplating on why they did. Ask them.. just drop it in a casual way "dude, want to go and get noodles. Oh, and... did I offend you the other day?"

ps. cultural construct - political correctness.

 

[Wyote]

"dude, want to go and get noodles. Oh, and... did I offend you the other day?"

Dude, want to go and get noodles? @Deleted member 16771 can come too. Hope I haven't offended either of you. Let's be frands, then I can offend you and it won't matter.

PS: I'm highly offensive

 

[Puzzlenuzzle]

Dude, want to go and get noodles? @Deleted member 16771 can come too. Hope I haven't offended either of you. Let's be frands, then I can offend you and it won't matter.

PS: I'm highly offensive

Frand, I see what you did there.
ps. I didn't mean it like that

 

[hn&#Gu]

Entirely unrelated but...

 

[Ren]

Cheers, Ren. I'll keep an eye out of course, but I'm also conscious of the whole 'networking' thing you have to do to be successful in academia and therefore navigating these relationships carries more risk than perhaps it should.

Maybe now is to time to seriously consider what sort of persona I want to cultivate?

Oh yes, the networking thing... I completely forgot about that I guess I didn't do much of that at the time.

And look where I'm at now. No academia for me. Sigh. Damn Enneagram 4.

 

[Ren]

I feel the need to drive conversation, especially if the other people in the party aren't doing that themselves.

INTJ in hiding.

Regarding the persona, I don't mean to state the obvious but yeah, cultivate a bit of one, it doesn't mean you have to become someone else though. Sometimes the people who help you out in academia are those you have strong, solid bonds with, not the persona-based ones. It depends.

 

[John K]

There's a lot already been said that looks pretty good to me @Deleted member 16771. Just a few thoughts ....

Have you tried approaching the guys and sounding them out for some feedback? I used to do this at work if something was going wrong with any of my relationships. I sometimes found that a negative reaction from someone actually had little to do with me and I'd been worrying needlessly - they had other issues that were taking up their emotions and attention and it had spilled over a bit. When it was to do with me, just bringing the problem out like that and talking about it made a big difference because we understood each other a lot better then - it didn't always lead to a comfortable relationship but we always ended up knowing what to expect a bit better, and how to avoid problems as far as possible in the future.

Were you all on the same wavelength about the nature of your discussion? A debate isn't a natural form of conversation if you are meeting in a social context - particularly if you are new acquaintances and still getting to know each other. With new people it's almost possible to be objective - we are going to be both consciously and unconsciously assessing them. In fact that assessing process is actually more important to many of us than the details of what is being said. I for one would be trying to place you, understand who you are, what makes you tick, whether I'll get on with you or not over the years we may be thrown together during our degrees. I'd be using your debating style as an indicator of your character. I very much enjoy that sort of play-fighting discussion myself, I've pissed off not a few people assuming they were ok with it. It's like with any game - cross an invisible line and the red card comes out.

Are you all getting to grips with a new university environment, a new town and many new people. It's not as bad as being a fresh undergraduate but it still puts a lot of pressure on us and we'll respond in different ways to it. Perhaps your guys were feeling a bit stressed out with all this, and not feeling very objective? For me that environment would be a cue for many more introvert withdrawals than usual, together with a significant feeling of insecurity till I'd found my way around, got clear agreed work objectives, a bit of a routine with my studies, and met some people I was comfortable with socially. You are possibly closer to a supervisor than a student in your level of maturity and this could be a bit disheartening for anyone feeling a bit insecure.

It's very irritating when people take a perspective as a hard opinion - I have the same problems as you, @wolly.green and @Asa have described. It's particularly bad when I'm further back than I assume you were with the validity of your viewpoint. I think out loud to explore a "possibility space" if you know what I mean - an exploration of ideas that may be not be thought out or even really tenable in themselves but help to shape a broad context potentially containing whole fresh insights. Most people want closure of possibilities in discussions, preferably around a conviction they already hold. They react badly to anything that opens up a whole wide space of alternatives and shakes the foundations of what they believe - I think it must be threatening to them, but it's the very sort of air I like to breath myself. I used to get into trouble in management meetings if I did this too often when everyone else wanted to close down on something.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

There's a lot already been said that looks pretty good to me @Deleted member 16771. Just a few thoughts ....

Have you tried approaching the guys and sounding them out for some feedback? I used to do this at work if something was going wrong with any of my relationships. I sometimes found that a negative reaction from someone actually had little to do with me and I'd been worrying needlessly - they had other issues that were taking up their emotions and attention and it had spilled over a bit. When it was to do with me, just bringing the problem out like that and talking about it made a big difference because we understood each other a lot better then - it didn't always lead to a comfortable relationship but we always ended up knowing what to expect a bit better, and how to avoid problems as far as possible in the future.

Were you all on the same wavelength about the nature of your discussion? A debate isn't a natural form of conversation if you are meeting in a social context - particularly if you are new acquaintances and still getting to know each other. With new people it's almost possible to be objective - we are going to be both consciously and unconsciously assessing them. In fact that assessing process is actually more important to many of us than the details of what is being said. I for one would be trying to place you, understand who you are, what makes you tick, whether I'll get on with you or not over the years we may be thrown together during our degrees. I'd be using your debating style as an indicator of your character. I very much enjoy that sort of play-fighting discussion myself, I've pissed off not a few people assuming they were ok with it. It's like with any game - cross an invisible line and the red card comes out.

Are you all getting to grips with a new university environment, a new town and many new people. It's not as bad as being a fresh undergraduate but it still puts a lot of pressure on us and we'll respond in different ways to it. Perhaps your guys were feeling a bit stressed out with all this, and not feeling very objective? For me that environment would be a cue for many more introvert withdrawals than usual, together with a significant feeling of insecurity till I'd found my way around, got clear agreed work objectives, a bit of a routine with my studies, and met some people I was comfortable with socially. You are possibly closer to a supervisor than a student in your level of maturity and this could be a bit disheartening for anyone feeling a bit insecure.

It's very irritating when people take a perspective as a hard opinion - I have the same problems as you, @wolly.green and @Asa have described. It's particularly bad when I'm further back than I assume you were with the validity of your viewpoint. I think out loud to explore a "possibility space" if you know what I mean - an exploration of ideas that may be not be thought out or even really tenable in themselves but help to shape a broad context potentially containing whole fresh insights. Most people want closure of possibilities in discussions, preferably around a conviction they already hold. They react badly to anything that opens up a whole wide space of alternatives and shakes the foundations of what they believe - I think it must be threatening to them, but it's the very sort of air I like to breath myself. I used to get into trouble in management meetings if I did this too often when everyone else wanted to close down on something.

Hi, John. So just for a bit of an update, I apologised to the guy over text and asked him if he felt uncomfortable.

It turns out that you and @Puzzlenuzzle were right. It's not so much about comfort, but that he wanted a more relaxed and informal get together, and my 'devil's advocate debate' did not serve that purpose. He said we could talk about it if I wanted to next time.

I actually felt terrible afterwards, and yes, confused too like I said, and it's lead to all sorts of soul searching to be honest.

I think for me and some of my close friends, 'talking big' has probably been casualised and informalised to an uncommon degree. Personally I get excited and engaged by it, and I think I expected these people to be the same way.

Also, it's my default. My mum always said I was 'too heavy' and 'too deep', and friends know that I can be intense. I actually have to feel very comfortable with people before I can be light and relaxed, I think (though this isn't always the case) - which is kind of the opposite to how most people operate socially.

It sucks and it's not fun sometimes.

 

[Wyote]

I think for me and some of my close friends, 'talking big' has probably been casualised and informalised to an uncommon degree.

It is really great that you have been able to recognize this! Now you can adapt

Also, it's my default. My mum always said I was 'too heavy' and 'too deep', and friends know that I can be intense. I actually have to feel very comfortable with people before I can be light and relaxed, I think (though this isn't always the case) - which is kind of the opposite to how most people operate socially.

It sucks and it's not fun sometimes.

I am often the same way my dude

 

[John K]

Hi, John. So just for a bit of an update, I apologised to the guy over text and asked him if he felt uncomfortable.

It turns out that you and @Puzzlenuzzle were right. It's not so much about comfort, but that he wanted a more relaxed and informal get together, and my 'devil's advocate debate' did not serve that purpose. He said we could talk about it if I wanted to next time.

I actually felt terrible afterwards, and yes, confused too like I said, and it's lead to all sorts of soul searching to be honest.

I think for me and some of my close friends, 'talking big' has probably been casualised and informalised to an uncommon degree. Personally I get excited and engaged by it, and I think I expected these people to be the same way.

Also, it's my default. My mum always said I was 'too heavy' and 'too deep', and friends know that I can be intense. I actually have to feel very comfortable with people before I can be light and relaxed, I think (though this isn't always the case) - which is kind of the opposite to how most people operate socially.

It sucks and it's not fun sometimes.

I feel very close to this in my own way. I had a lot of problems with other kids when I was at primary school and never got on with them. I was cleverer than most of them and used it to establish superiority in my own mind - and for real in specifics. That was a sort of saviour for me because it gave me self worth, and affirmation from adults, but was not really a good way to be. It took me a lot of reflection in later life to see what I was doing and put it under control. Fortunately my infj always held sway even though I can only see that with hindsight.