h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And also there are those who aren't incredibly talented, but are anti-social 'cause of their working so hard to make it look like they are.

I think there is just intelligence. The "emotional intelligence" and such are different things, and shouldn't be called intelligence. But they might very well be real qualities. Even though often you get the feeling they are more like when somebody who is bad in school is called "practically gifted".

And I think intelligent people end up anti-social because as children they were outcasts. Smart kids don't make friends easily. Which also makes you look differently at the "mad scientist" from movies. If some guy was treated awfully his whole childhood, he might end up with a grudge against humanity. If he then invents a machine/bomb of enourmous power, doesn't it seem understandable that he will use it to destroy the world?

The "mad" scientist is a cultural myth

Geniuses are often single minded because to be REALLY good at something difficult usually takes a LOT of time and practice.

"Emotional intelligence" is real intelligence. Dealing with our fellows was almost certainly the reason we developed intelligence in the first place. The things we do easily and take for granted are not necessarily simple - they just seem that way because big chunks of the brain are dedicated to them. Which takes up the most brain space - identifying everyday items in your visual field or higher maths?


Noggin

That's true, the reason humans have done so well is probably largely because of co-operation.

The issue about the human brain's abilities is not simply about size. Some creatures such as reptiles have little more than a brain stem, which we also have, that enables it to carry out a wide range of basic activity, including complicated automatic activity such as breathing. It also covers emotional and reward responses etc which are vital to enable and encourage procreation, eating when hungry, hunting, fleeing etc.

Other creatures have considerable amounts of brain cortex beyond the brain stem, but only primates have well developed forebrain (prefrontal lobes). It is this which enables us to carry out much more complex functions, though there remains considerable debate about exactly how these 'higher functions' really work and about the connections between the (from an evolutionary perspective) new and old parts of the brain work together.

Whilst it is true that brain cells (like all cells) specialise early in our development. It is not true that this prevents the brain learning new tricks: There are many examples of people whose brains have been partly destroyed and where they have relearned the function, presumably by a kind of rerouting of already specialised brain structures. I expect that this would become more difficult in old age or for people with early senility as one of the basic symptoms and perhaps causes of senility is dendritic atropy - a withering of the connections between brain cells, which would decrease the options available for rerouting.

while we are talking about intelligence, we might want to comment on the intelligence project which has already covered a lot of this (but needs more feedback).

it's at A584525

Does anyone actually have any access to stats about the supposed correlation between intelligence and difficulties socialising? Or conversely between lack of intelligence and an ability to socialise?

Or is this all subjective, based on anecdotal and personal experience?

Because if it IS subjective then my personal experience and anecdotes are as good as anyone else's and I challenge that perception. Although I do know some socially inadequate geniuses, I also know some socially inadequate and distinctly un-gifted people too. In my experience there is very little correlation between intelligence and the ability or inability to socialise. In fact the three brightest people I know all socialise fabulously well.

Ben

I think that is because they ALSO have high emotional intelligence. Not all are so lucky to have both.

there are some stats about the iq differences between the commenders and men in military units.

apparently it is better if there is less than about 30 iq points difference between the leader and the men.

it appears to be something to do with problems with the men being able to follow the leaders reasoning if he is too different in iq.

That makes a lot of sense. People do seem to be quite aware of 'the scale of intelligence' of others around them. You have to feel that the skills of the person you wish to emulate are within your reach to make it worthwhile following their example.

I have research stats for pretty much all of this. However, I shall be annoying and apathetic and defer going to get them until I am sufficiently bored...

There are clear links between aggression and the ability to understand social cues. It seems like some people can only interpret human behaviour as threatening/challenging their personal space (eg : knocking their pint over, or brushing past them in the pub) and can only respond in like terms (ie : aggression).

Sounds a little off topic, but in relation to intelligence, this inadequacy is not irreversible - through therapy and the suchlike, social cue reading can be learnt - just developed anger management. Maybe the same can be for so-say *stupidity* and it's just a matter of discovering how...?

I rarely know the point I am trying to make

So called *stupidity* can cover a variety of states, so some can be improved, some not.
There are those with a limited capability for learning (limited as in well below average) who may have reached their limit, those who have not yet reached their limit & could go further; those with capability within 'normal limits' who are under achievers or unable to apply their knowledge; those who are gifted in a certain area but seem incredibly stupid in others.
I daresay all of these could improve if motivated & taught in a suitable manner.