From http://voxday.blogspot.com/200... ...

[Vox quotes from http://article.nationalreview.... ...]

An acquaintance of mine, an academic in the human sciences (not Charles Murray) holds the opinion that across an IQ gap of more than one standard deviation (i.e. about 15 points), communication between two people becomes difficult, and that beyond two standard deviations it is effectively impossible.

[Vox:] I think this is somewhat of an exaggeration. There's no question that crossing the intelligence chasm can be very hard, but it can be done if there is sufficient patience and respect on both sides.

I have long had an issue with the supposed intelligent who are unable to master basic social skills. Put another way, just how smart can you really be if you can't master that which is easily handled by those far less intellectually endowed?

Of course, those in a higher standard deviation of IQ may need to put a bit more thought into their social presentation to avoid speaking above others' heads, suggesting such behavior is not first-nature. In no way should this small "effort" imply a potential for lacking such ability, though. By analogy, if you naturally run at 10 mph, then running at 7 mph--while not first-nature to you--should be just as easy, if not easier, with an ounce of applied thought.

This stereotypical phenomenon is seen readily on the sitcom, "The Big Bang Theory", for example. It's a show about supposedly intellectually superior academics and the foibles of interacting with normal people (e.g., a pretty girl across the hall, the object of one nerd's affections). (One could reasonably assert just how idiotic it is for the Left Coast to produce a show about the intellectually superior, being populated largely with morons!) The arguably smartest nerd of the TV bunch is painted to be the most socially inept, leading to plenty of situational comedy.

By and large, social customs are just as formulaic and predictable, individually and in aggregate, as most any hard science--assuming the variables are correctly identified (also assuming a correct worldview--ah, there's the rub!). So, why do the supposed intelligent fail so miserably to get along with normal people? Is it a matter of choice? Are they attempting to masturbate their egos by showing how social conventions do not apply to the likes of them? (Methinks thou dost protest too much, eh?)

I tend to think such social idiots are just not so smart as they think themselves. As I noted in my update of Zietsman's view of IQs, such socially inept "smart" people may have disproportionately protruding portions of their IQ balloons, but these protuberances do not necessarily imply a higher volume overall. Excepting their oversized protrusions into whatever specialties they may exhibit, they may not be much different than any other average person. In fact, if their overall IQ volume is average, then these protrusions must be detracting from the radii of other abilities, like common social skills. As much as these pseudo-intellectuals enjoy condescending to "normals", so the average man may enjoy putting these idiots in their place for their failure to master even basic skills common to 99% of the rest of the population.

Back to communicating across supposed IQ gaps, it depends upon how IQ is quantified. If measured as a scalar, it would be more accurate to measure the overall volume of an IQ balloon, rather than the few protrusions commonly tested in such scores. (These hypothetical, superior tests are not forthcoming anytime soon, I expect.) Those who cannot communicate effectively with others--if indeed they desire to do so--may not be nearly as smart as they'd like to believe. We would be better off understanding intelligence as being more than a simple scalar, though. Some are wired to excel at some forms of thought, while others excel in ways too often overlooked as "common". It's okay to appreciate our own or others' protrusions in IQ balloons, but recognize that such superior skills in limited areas do not imply a bigger balloon overall.

The so-called intellectuals prefer to believe their intelligence balloon's protrusions indicate a larger radius, and therefore greater volume, overall. Their exhibition of social autism and other such failures prove this is not the case. On the other hand, those often deemed "normal" may actually have a larger intelligence balloon overall, but because they're more rounded, they're often incorrectly judged to be intellectually inferior to those with odd protrusions distorting their potentially smaller balloons. Those who can't hold a simple conversation with a plumber--and a lawyer, ballplayer, doctor, secretary, dancer, janitor, and bum--probably aren't really that bright after all.