Brilliant academically but socially inept or reversed?

Post Reply New Topic

I was thinking about this question just now...For us aspies, I think it is easier for us to say that we would want to be brilliant socially and be academically stupid. I was just throwing this question out there to see what you guys think...

Nope. I'd much rather be brilliant academically - assuming that "academically" is postgraduate level and beyond.

not me, I want both...

For me definitely both, but I don't think I could ever live with myself if I lost my academic intelligence.

I would rather brilliant academically but socially inept than the reverse.

A big problem with "brilliant academically" is that academia today is social based, rather than tailored to the individual. You can be a very smart individual, but since you are socially ret*d/delayed, this latter portion transposes over the academia.

They're both intertwined in today's society. Unlike in the past, where you could work one on one with a master in many fields that now require that you attend social schooling (actually, I think nearly everything is a college degree nowadays; whereas in the past one could be a medical doctor via apprenticeship).

Yes, I used to be but not anymore. Now I am bad at both...

I would say I am a little slow socially, but possibly inept when trying to figure out the real meaning behind what they're implying. I could say I am good academically, but only in certain situations with subjects I care about, mainly sciences, mathematics, language, and music. I wouldn't sacrifice my academics for social improvement, but since your work-output is only based on social impact, that idea may change in the near future.

Daniel - it depends on your field and your country. I work in a major research university (not as an academic, sadly). The very, very brightest here pretty much can write their own ticket - some are socially adept and some are not, but once in a research setting the truly brilliant don't have to be able to even decode "hi, how are you" as long as they produce the research outcomes.

I know some truly brilliant people who I strongly suspect are "us" - I watch them on a daily basis, and I'm pretty darned sure at least a few of them are "us".

I'd settle for being able to claim the kind of brilliance I've met here. Would I ever!

The Nobel Prize winners are, however, surprisingly diplomatic. Have no idea if it's innate or learned. My guess is that they are so tremendously bright they've been able to study the appropriate social "stuff" and paint it on when they need to, if they aren't able to do it "NT" style.... It's just one more subject to master at school - you work for it.

Being academically gifted means the possibility of being written up in a history book. Being gifted socially means being just like the billions of other people who are gifted socially, all manipulating their way to the surface of a small pond, trying to eat the most algae in order to become the biggest fish.
I would rather have a Nobel Prize and some notoriety.

It wouldn't surprise me if it's both, or either/or. James Watson (the guy who discovered DNA). I heard a rumor he didn't co-discover it, he took a lot (but far from all-he did get some things right) of the idea from his professor, who died due to cancer that came from some test she did that was related. Don't trust me on this info, look it up.

If you look at Al Gore's nomination, and what many in the right-wing said about why he was chosen....and other stuff like that.

Basically the scientific community is full of similar social BS, that's if you believe those rumors. Wouldn't surprise me to see even scientists and the like ripping each other off, as what arguably Edison did to Tesla (I am aware there are other examples of inventors and discoverers ripping each other off a bunch of times; and the historical stuff regarding european scientists inventing all things first...lol). Competition drives even them against each other, etc

Then as you pointed out, there are NTs who end up in those fields; well there are 'normal' people and arguably blatant egoists and maniacs. Issac Asimov mentioned there were elitists in MENSA when he was there.

Basically it depends....a LOT.

EDIT: I would rather be academically bright and socially inept, no lie..

I'd want to be successful at both. One without the other is really useless.

I wouldn't like to reverse it, despite the fact I'm only above average in some subjects, like Science and ICT. Other ones like PE, Music and Drama I'm below below average(like, saying I'm below average is an over-rating) and I'm pretty much useless .
I'd blame that on my social ineptness. But then again, I wouldn't classify any of them as an academic subject anyway.
EMZ.

If I were forced to an exclusive choice I would prefer being smart to being popular. In fact that was the story of my younger life. I was branded a "nerd" even before the term "nerd" was coined. They used to call me "brains" or "scientist". And the bitchy girls in high school with any looks at all would not go out on a date with me. The goyim loved to beat me up because I was (a) Jewish and (b) ten times smarter than they were. So I learned ju jitsu and Dirty Fighting. After I broke a few arms they stopped bothering me. I was an Aspie who fought dirty and won!

So it was. In the long run I lived my way and it worked out just fine. I am married to an NT going on 53 years and all but one of my children is an NT. One is an Aspie, like his Old Man, but he is adapting to the majority NT world as I did. He too, is married to an NT. I have never ceased being an Aspie. I adapted to the NT world by figuring out the rules algorithmically (how else?) and applying them. I learned to pain "by the numbers" once I figured out what the numbers were.

ruveyn