Why 'intelligent conversation' is taboo

Post Reply New Topic

well, I have been called bull-headed and argumentative for a reason XD

But back onto the main topic, doing the intellectual talking in the wrong situation can come across as a challenge to some people, or as an insult to their own intelligence to others. Either way, since humans are just animals with debatedly more intelligence and a much larger effect on the world environment, they will initiate the fight or flight response and either argue with you or try to avoid ya.

Great topic, definitely helps a bit to understand why people won't talk about certain things in groups.

I love to debate, argue, and learn from different view points but most people just get angry or irritated about it.

The threads premise is great... I kept wanting to quote sections of the original post, over and over, just to reply, "YES!"

But I find the general consensus going down a path I don't agree with, stemming from Max Headroom's posts. Although I do not deny the trend that people seek to reinforce their existing beliefs, I think we're using this as the go-to simple answer. I don't think the reality is nearly that simple.

Not only that, I'm seeing "intelligence" being thrown around, particularly in the context of comparative intelligence, with the seeming implication that there's flatly dumb people, compared to gifted, smart people. It's being presented as if you could divide people along these lines in a concrete manner. I just don't buy that. Granted, there's gonna be situations where some people will be better prepared, with more to say, having thought about a topic, or it's attached concepts, more than another person has. But that's not quite the same as intelligent, and it's logical counterpart, stupidity.
But that right there may be a tangent.

I have a hard time expressing why I think this particular path of thought - the 'bubble' theory, and the "stupid masses" narrative - is misguided... not just because I don't have much for ready counterargument, but because it's such a large topic that it's difficult to refine into concise, coherent, communicable points(sometimes I get all jumbled up on a big subject, unless I've already written about it). Fortunately, those arguments are being made on un-based assertions, so my own baseless assertion is in the same category!

So anyways... No, I can't shoot down this prevailing narrative at the moment, but I figured I oughta express that I disagree. And I've that I've got reasons! They're just unpresentable!

Retail isn't a good measure of people's capacities or normal behavior... The consumer environment can bring out the worst in people in many different ways.
Regarding intelligence, if your typical thought process tends to filter out and highlights moments of 'stupidity,' instead of otherwise, then of course people are going to appear generally stupid. It's just as susceptible to error as someone who's unrealistically optimistic. Accordingly, I think this 'bubble' notion, despite it's merits, carries too much pessimism, and due credit is not given. Are there dim, ignorant, rigid people? Certainly. But to this degree? Personally, I do not think so.

All that said, unfortunately I do not have a better answer to the original question.
I struggle with the same issue. I keep wanting to jump straight to musing on the deeper points, or the curious details, etc. And unfortunately, I'm one of those kinds of guys who's a slave to tangents and struggles to curb the monologue.

On one hand, if I've typed up a big-ass post again, and I review my text, I will detect the times when I'm grossly out of bounds, and will turn off most people(actually, I backspaced out two paragraphs in my last post because of this). I can't do this if I'm conversing in the moment though. And even in text, if I'm only somewhat past the line of accessibility, there's a real good chance I wont realize it. In essence, I don't feel like I've yet to figure out what defines 'accessible' and what defines inaccessible.'

And, btw, I personally feel like that's a better descriptor than whether a convo is 'too intelligent.' You had a great observation, Techstep, when you pointed out that some smart guys in the crowd will 'know better,' and will have kept silent despite their ability to participate, or interest. But despite that, this pattern ends up playing out even in conversations that aren't especially challenging, just abstract, or overly specific, or objective in nature. I think it's more that they're somehow inaccessible, instead of strictly intellectually challenging.

But why is a given topic inaccessible? What makes something accessible? I'm really not sure at all.

However, there's one tactic I sometimes pull off that seems to work at pulling others into 'my world,' despite what would otherwise be inaccessible. In this case, it's all about interaction with others; Pulling another person into the talk rather than allowing them to join on their own. Doing things like asking them simple questions to precede your point. Or instructing them on what to focus on. It can act as not only imposed inclusion, but also potentially walks them through your thought process. Like a tutorial to your mindset. Although the content of the subject does not change, but the presentation changes.

....Right about here is where I'd try to put in a hypothetical example, but I can't think of a good one! Bah!!

Another tactic that I've taken to using, with a bit of practice, and a bit of success, is by livening up the way I speak, and spicing up my wording. A roommate of mine was a very charismatic guy, and a great story-teller. I copied elements of his communication style quite a bit, and some of the things he did was to vary his voice tone, change up into evocative speech patterns, interesting prosody, talk in obvious and sorta wacky hyperbole, habitually try to cram in humor if possible, use some occasional obscenities(they're not entirely pointless - it's like pepper on a salad), etc. Just make a mental note to tart up the presentation instead of going straight to the most effective/accurate/true/immediate/efficient wording or speech pattern. It takes effort, but it's not so bad when you get used to trying.

Sometimes the way one speaks can be engaging enough that what you're saying either doesn't matter, or becomes interesting enough that they'll push through whether it's accessible or not.

Oooooh crap, I typed too much again.

I know it is frowned upon in some circles to say thngs that make you sound intelligent. i think it is because people would think a person was being pompous and trying to show off- "Look at me, I am very intelligent" though with aspies that is often not the case, we just love facts but people would misread my intentions I think.

The early early Tom & Jerry cartoons were plenty violent, lemme tell ya. Heck back then they got away with stuff that would get the FCC on their backs in modern times.

South Park and Beavis and Butthead don't excel in violence, merely crudeness.

that is so true....and kindly put.

I think homo sapiens compartmentalize to survive. this is my culture, this is what is real, according to parents then institutions.

it's best to seek out people who thrive on keeping their minds open. I think in the situaition the OP talked about so much of the communicating is done non-verbally, all the stuff we miss. The last crush I had was someone I felt was extremely intelligent and I could never understand why she seemed to want to hide it and dumb herself down. Now I realize looking back it's because she was a swinger and what she wanted was to get laid from girls alot younger than her, so she had to talk on their level and use words like 'ur' for your and 'u' for you etc because that was her lingo. She wasn't using speech to communicate ideas, but to move closer to getting these girls/women into bed. If it wasn't moving her in that direction she didn't have a use for it.

I'll be honest, I was itching in the opposite direction. When I started reading your post, I figured that where you were going with it was, "why am I the only intelligent person around and everybody else is shallow and stupid?". I have read a lot of threads like that and I thought this would be another one. That was an unfair assumption for me to make/ You didn't go there. Instead, you made the observation that even intelligent friends you have will put a lid on it in certain situations so as not to come off as flaunting their intelligence in a boastful fashion. At the risk of boasting (and it is a risk, you are right), I put myself in the company of people who do that. I calibrate what I say so that no remark seems gratuitous.

A good middle ground and a method that I often use, is to mix things up and use a blend of smart and silly. If all your remarks come across as Deep Ponderings, it does sound pompous. But if you toss in some silliness or conversational fluff, it comes across as less so. Mix the heavy with the light for a well-rounded conversation that won't put people off.

I'm actually delighted that techstepprgeneration didn't go off in that direction. Conversational calibration can be a tricky area but he's right: it's not because "stupid people drag things down". The whole "smart/stupid" supposed dichotomy isn't a helpful or an accurate way of looking at people and conversations.

I think the trouble is we're dealing with something - ie communication - that serves specific and isolated social functions based on what grade of communication it is.

My challenge is - I'm great with factual, I'm fine with 'observant' gesting, but that's a very narrow single facet. When it comes to endearing ones self to most people there is a specific structure and ettiquette to that kind of spoken language. For broaching or testing the waters for a potential relationship - there are very specific sets of ettiquette for that as well. I've been in plenty of conversations with people in the past where, they were using English words but, I couldn't compute any of it - it seemed like a very emotive and abstract language to me where I couldn't draw the relations between the words, ie. its the kind of thing where it would bounce right off of me enough to where right now I could never give you an example because it couldn't compute even enough for me to remember.

Being that communication is this compartmentalized and functionalized, I think we - as aspies - are right to want to analyze it. I'm just hoping that, for the sake of my general confidence around people let alone with relationships, that I can tie this down some time in my thirties.


Sound: as for what you're saying - I think you're right in that there's definitely more to it, although I think Max hit a very specific narrow angle of it that I've had trouble grasping; ie. its been right in front of my face, its the kind of thing I may have realized even several times but it was never pivotal enough in my mind to make it stick - possibly because at those times I just had higher priorities (bigger problems) that I was trying to nail down solutions to.

What I think it is - partially people have varying levels of expertise and they feel uncomfortable if someone is talking over them in an area they just don't know. If Max were wrong then the paradigm would go something like this: if you spoke on a higher level people, rather than feeling deflated or threatened, would simply be thankful that you're telling them something they hadn't known, they'd actually want to pick your brain and learn new things - they'd see it as a contribution to the group and perhaps even share what they know. Yes, in certain environments and with a lot of people - of all IQ levels - you'll have those conversations, though they also typically tend to stay private. There are plenty of people who will turn hostile no matter what as they'll feel like its an intended one-up or, like Max indicated, anything other than social jesting or abiding by their own straight-jacket social code (ie. going to a party and realizing that they're dictatorial about the radio - has to be, not only top 40 but 'this months' top 40).

Yes, its definitely not all us - they're position is definitely not all light either (in a lot of ways I really call it back to natural eugenics - then again no one can really help that we're meat puppets built on an animal frame), but I think these things definitely have more concrete rules that people are necessarily willing to let on, perhaps rather complex rules, but rules nonetheless. Even if it comes down to we have a disability and the very point of it is separating and neutralizing people who are 'different', at least knowing that and knowing how to take it, what to do with it, etc. is better than grapping with a permanent mystery.

I have this to say; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHVIv-hSg14

(recanted my first answer)

I think people in general have these triggers when you wave existential realities in front of their face, at least *if* they don't have something to counter it (which she clearly didn't). That said though, I don't think its always the goal of intelligence to roll right over and take people and I'd like to think that people can read between the lines, even on an animalistic level, whether a person's of good intent. Typically speaking though, if you are a good person and running into static - either your hitting an insecurity or you're stepping on an agenda that someone has in play (or, your character and sincerity are a danger to their agenda).

people just simply don't like it when a fact you say can really wreck their 'good mood', or make their bad mood worse. Yeah, I may be a pessimist, and I thoroughly enjoy shooting down optimists for entertainment, but yeah. When you do this kinda of stuff people already tend to have their views set in the first place, and they don't like the view being challenged. As I said in my previous post, it triggers a subconscious fight or flight response.

I haven't really brought up intelligence, but here is my simplified view. You cant really define it at all as it changes from person to person. I myself tend to put the whole common sense and logical reasoning skills as the most important indicators. Sadly a lot of people lack these, hence why the world is as screwed up as it it, why society is as screwed up as it is. I don't count college experiences for one reason. All you have learned is just data unless you actively use it, then it becomes 'information'. The wielding of information can thus be considered intelligence. But yeah, its a simplified version which does allow for stupid people. That however wasnt the point of the damn thread, so thanks alot to whoever brought up intelligence and dumb/stupid vs smart first. It was very effective in getting me to just post this. XD

I haven't read all the posts here - I just skimmed through and read bits and pieces, but I'd like to address one thing I saw pop up a few times: that people are uncomfortable with intelligent conversation because it makes them feel inferior.

Obviously, this is sometimes true. There is a huge range of intelligence out there in the world, and I've experienced conversations with the full extent of it, believe me. One thing I've come to learn is that the "stupid" people are often not as stupid as you might think. Sure, they might not appreciate the nuances of Renaissance art or get off on talking about astrophysics or the meaning of life, but they may be very socially astute. And while you (and I mean the impersonal "you" here) are at the pub soliloquising about the intricacies of the British political system, behind that blank look on their face, they are actually thinking, "What a pretentious twat." I know this because I have both thought it (many times: I went to a prestigious uni and for some reason certain groups felt that they always had to discuss something with great relevance ad nauseum - yawn) and have had it thought about me (hehe - probably far, far more than I know).

The best way, I think, to determine an appropriate level or topic of conversation is to ask lots of general questions and find out what the other members of the group are interested in. That seemingly "stupid" guy who glazed over as you spoke about the big world news stories of the day might completely light up when he talks about the house he designed and is building himself. In my opinion, it's all about interest, not intelligence.

I haven't read all the posts here - I just skimmed through and read bits and pieces, but I'd like to address one thing I saw pop up a few times: that people are uncomfortable with intelligent conversation because it makes them feel inferior.

Obviously, this is sometimes true. There is a huge range of intelligence out there in the world, and I've experienced conversations with the full extent of it, believe me. One thing I've come to learn is that the "stupid" people are often not as stupid as you might think. Sure, they might not appreciate the nuances of Renaissance art or get off on talking about astrophysics or the meaning of life, but they may be very socially astute. And while you (and I mean the impersonal "you" here) are at the pub soliloquising about the intricacies of the British political system, behind that blank look on their face, they are actually thinking, "What a pretentious twat." I know this because I have both thought it (many times: I went to a prestigious uni and for some reason certain groups felt that they always had to discuss something with great relevance ad nauseum - yawn) and have had it thought about me (hehe - probably far, far more than I know).

The best way, I think, to determine an appropriate level or topic of conversation is to ask lots of general questions and find out what the other members of the group are interested in. That seemingly "stupid" guy who glazed over as you spoke about the big world news stories of the day might completely light up when he talks about the house he designed and is building himself. In my opinion, it's all about interest, not intelligence.

Good stuff. This is basically my view of things. Well presented.

You're summing up exactly why I put the disclaimer in the last paragraph of my OP. I was hanging out with some guys this weekend who would seem like (semi) redneck NT's but - sharp as tacks when it came to mechanical work, boats, trucks, rigging things to be towed, securing and preloading, mainly that this is thier 'game' or expertise. I think the only area where I fell off course a bit and had to do damage control is when we got on the topic of guns I started talking about some more expensive stuff that I've been interested in - I would have thought if it was too rich for someone else's blood and if they knew way more about guns, they'd figure that I was just trying to make conversation, seem passionate about what they're passionate about (which I am - just horridly new), and they'd likely either try to talk me down off of that (let me know what's more practical) or just take it the way I meant it - I didn't get that much of a bad vibe from that one but I don't get the impression that I exactly helped the conversation that way.

People like that I'd never want to bring up topics like astrophysics mainly because its utterly off point, I'd hope most people would get that. The challenge is though, when you do run out of words, not seeming like you're passing judgment or like your aloof/stuck up. Guys like that I could gain a wealth of practical knowledge from and gearheads in general do a lot of things that I'd never in my life have the capacity to do, partly that I just haven't been set with the right kinds of short term/working memory but partly also because my parents were the same way and never introduced me to but rather kept me away from it. 4 wheelers, ATV's, dirtbikes, sportbikes, taking apart two-stroke or four-stroke engines, working on boat motors - these were all things that were utterly alien to me as a kid and today I'm still barely any better with.

So the real challenge then, IMO, isn't knowing what's on or off point so much as situations where the topic of conversation is on something that's quite deceptive - where you can easily end up saying something that was out of people's reach, oddly objective, or seems floutish and not realize it until its too late.