Intelligence associated with Negativity?

[niar]

What I reject is that this is a universal. I don't see intelligence as inevitably leading to a negative attitude, though of course it may do according to each person's life experiences and fate, and also perhaps to the choices that they make. Logically, it's just as reasonable to say that someone intelligent who looks at the world with intuition and sees it's deep glory as well as it's tragedy can have a very positive attitude and this is just as much a manifestation of intelligence. I don't see a positive or negative attitude as being an indicator of intelligence - it's more to do with the way we manifest either of them.

I don't know if it's universal. The point I'm trying to make is that what people who are unintelligent, uncritical, unintrospective, misinterpret as a negative attitude in an intelligent/disadvantaged person who's just realistic, might be in fact positivity bias. Especially when both are combined: a person who barely knows or questions anything, and has lived a priviledged bubble life, is very unlikely to be realistic or negative, whichever you prefer.

 

[John K]

I don't know if it's universal. The point I'm trying to make is that what people who are unintelligent, uncritical, unintrospective, misinterpret as a negative attitude in an intelligent/disadvantaged person who's just realistic, might be in fact positivity bias. Especially when both are combined: a person who barely knows or questions anything, and has lived a priviledged bubble life, is very unlikely to be realistic or negative, whichever you prefer.

Of course - I completely agree. But the opposite is also true and there is just as powerful a negativity bias, where the ignorant or the disadvantaged misrepresent and misunderstand a positive disposition in an intelligent person. I'm not denying these things happen, just that neither of them is a logical consequence of intelligence. It seems to me that an intelligent person is likely to have a complex mixture of both dispositions as well as a neutral attitude to many things.

 

[niar]

Of course - I completely agree. But the opposite is also true and there is just as powerful a negativity bias, where the ignorant or the disadvantaged misrepresent and misunderstand a positive disposition in an intelligent person. I'm not denying these things happen, just that neither of them is a logical consequence of intelligence. It seems to me that an intelligent person is likely to have a complex mixture of both dispositions as well as a neutral attitude to many things.

Why do you mean by the bolded? Misunderstand it as what?

 

[John K]

Why do you mean by the bolded? Misunderstand it as what?

Only that I think this can be equally true: that people can misinterpret as a falsely positive attitude in an intelligent person someone who's just realistic, and it might be in fact negativity bias.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

These people are poor examples of even raw intelligence, in my opinion. Regardless, it's not a matter of raw intelligence or morality. The root of the degradation of society, including the disastrous demonstrations of scientific knowledge that you mentioned, is scientific illiteracy.

I see it as an issue where a perverse form of science is held up as a religion and materialist ideology that is frankly corrosive to the human condition.

 

[philostam]

Some of the cleverest people I've come across are very positive, and show a great love for their area of expertise. The great physicist Richard Feynman had an infectious love of physics and the physical world, and was a tremendous communicator - he is considered one of the cleverest physicists of all time, alongside Newton and Einstein. CS Lewis is another really clever guy who comes across as very positive in disposition. I always remember Ray Parkinson who taught me maths in my senior school and he was a very clever and inspiring teacher whose positivism and love of his subject was incredibly contagious - we all loved him. But none of these people were rose-tinted glasses positive and could all be very critical when it was an appropriate response.

Yes, exactly what I was thinking.

A wise person once said that the truest test of intelligence is whether you get what you want from life. And being negative, for me, is a sign that you're unhappy on some level and powerless to change it. It's not empowering.

Two rules I try to live by:
- No matter how bad it is, it could always be worse
- No matter how you fucked up, It is never to late to change things for the better

 

[Matty]

I saw the title of this thread again and thought: low intelligence is associated with dumb opinions.

Whether this is perceived as negative, neutral, or positive says more about the person reacting. As the person saying it, I see it as neutral.

 

[Anomalous]

I would have thought intelligence would be measured by the degree to which one's insights are logical or accurate to reality, not to which they pertain to a perceived positive or negative.

Positively or negatively, a less intelligent person will judge prematurely.

 

[David Nelson]

Seeing faults in things with a view to improving them may be wrongly interpreted as being negative, but it isn’t. Less insightful/intelligent people are more likely to go along with things and this may be interpreted as being more positive.

 

[niar]

I see it as an issue where a perverse form of science is held up as a religion and materialist ideology that is frankly corrosive to the human condition.

I don't see a connection between materialism and science. Science is science. How can it be pervese? Pervese people use it for pervese means sometimes, and that has happened since the dawn of humankind, pretty much.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

I don't see a connection between materialism and science. Science is science. How can it be pervese? Pervese people use it for pervese means sometimes, and that has happened since the dawn of humankind, pretty much.

 

[philostam]

Seeing faults in things with a view to improving them may be wrongly interpreted as being negative, but it isn’t. Less insightful/intelligent people are more likely to go along with things and this may be interpreted as being more positive.

Yeah but what makes you think you're right and that your changes will actually improve things, and not make them worse?

Also many people skip the improving part, and just stay on the pointing out flaws part.

Improving things is way harder.

 

[philostam]

Also I see people complaining how shallow other people are and they can't connect on a deeper level with them.

While I sympathize with that to some extent, why not try and extend your circle? Unless you think your intelligence is so greater and no one is on your level?

I am pretty sure you're not a genius with 180 IQ that no one will ever understand.

 

[David Nelson]

Yeah but what makes you think you're right and that your changes will actually improve things, and not make them worse?

Also many people skip the improving part, and just stay on the pointing out flaws part.

Improving things is way harder.

I was talking in general, hence not in the first person. INFJs are gifted at seeing where real changes can be brought about but often aren’t simply because people, usually SJs can’t or won’t accept any change to the way things have been done up to now. Nothing is perfect obvs, I don’t see your point of suggesting changes might not be possible or better.
INFJs are also well placed to make good ideas real. It is easy to criticise and make yourself sound or look clever and insightful of course.

 

[Wyote]

Less insightful/intelligent people are more likely to go along with things

This is actually incorrect. Intelligent people are far more likely to go with the flow of things.

 

[Wyote]

Also I see people complaining how shallow other people are and they can't connect on a deeper level with them.

While I sympathize with that to some extent, why not try and extend your circle? Unless you think your intelligence is so greater and no one is on your level?

I am pretty sure you're not a genius with 180 IQ that no one will ever understand.

I suspect to some degree people are confusing/conflating creativity with intelligence.
A creative mind prefers to be with itself. Yes intelligent people can and often do have highly creative minds.
It is more difficult to be around others when you are more aware of the flaws in their thoughts and actions.
This is far different from just not getting along with people in some way or another, which is usually where people are at when they say these sorts of things.
Intelligent people are better able to find common ground and navigate situations, but it causes them a greater amount of stress.

 

[David Nelson]

This is actually incorrect. Intelligent people are far more likely to go with the flow of things.

I think it depends on what things we are talking about. I was thinking about conventional things like monarchy, religion, institutions, traditions.

 

[Wyote]

I was thinking about conventional things like monarchy, religion, institutions, traditions.

Ah, I getcha. I'm not entirely sure if there is a correlation in that sense.
I seem to recall it being pretty split between conventionality and nonconformity. Can't remember for certain atm though.

 

[John K]

I was talking in general, hence not in the first person. INFJs are gifted at seeing where real changes can be brought about but often aren’t simply because people, usually SJs can’t or won’t accept any change to the way things have been done up to now. Nothing is perfect obvs, I don’t see your point of suggesting changes might not be possible or better.
INFJs are also well placed to make good ideas real. It is easy to criticise and make yourself sound or look clever and insightful of course.

It’s actually quite a fascinating challenge this business of effective communication between very different types. INFJs are gifted by nature in the way you describe but they aren’t as gifted when it comes to selling their insights to others and getting support for them. This has to be a learnt skill for us, like learning to drive or to swim. The big mistake we make over and again with xSTJs is giving them open ended and half-cooked ideas, but that’s pretty poor use of our Fe skills. It’s as bad for them as sticking us INFJs unexpectedly into a game of charades with a group of extroverts who we don’t know. The Si types recoil instinctively from such ideas just like we do in our own difficult situations.

They need justification and validation of the suggested contents, and a way of transitioning. They need time as well to bring the new things into harmony with what they know and trust. This is analogous to the way we Ni types need time to assimilate and process changes to our conceptual architectures.

It’s no wonder these guys try and close us down quickly when you see it like this. One approach I’ve found helpful is to treat this communication problem as a focus for my own INFJ style insight and empathy orientation. That turns it away from being an irritation and type clash, and more towards finding a conceptual model and a win. It’s a challenge worthy of good and well applied Ni/Fe attention.

 

[David Nelson]

Yes John K, there is much to be gained from this kind of exploration. And although it’s an area of cognition which causes misunderstandings and stress, if people had a different perspective on it (because of the big possible benefits) they might see the merit in giving it some thought. It’s quite a challenge to reframe things to suit different personalities but one which could have massive benefits. I am very interested in this area myself, along with explaining different personalities so any type could make sense of them.