SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the appealing-to-a-community-of-loners dept.
A story at Inverse, covers research that concludes that Evolution Made Really Smart People Long to Be Loners:
Psychologists have a pretty good idea of what typically makes a human happy. Dancing delights us. Being in nature brings us joy. And, for most people, frequent contact with good friends makes us feel content.
That is, unless you're really, really smart.
In a paper published in the British Journal of Psychology , researchers Norman Li and Satoshi Kanazawa report that highly intelligent people experience lower life satisfaction when they socialize with friends more frequently. These are the Sherlocks and the Newt Scamanders of the world — the very intelligent few who would be happier if they were left alone.
[...] To come to this conclusion, the researchers analyzed the survey responses of 15,197 individuals between the ages of 18 and 28. Their data was a part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health — a survey that measures life satisfaction, intelligence, and health...
Intelligence is believed to have evolved as a psychological mechanism to solve novel problems — the sort of challenges that weren't a regular part of life. For our ancestors, frequent contact with friends and allies was a necessity that allowed them to survive. Being highly intelligent, however, meant an individual was more likely to be able to solve problems without another person's help, which in turn diminished the importance of their friendships.
[...] That certainly doesn't mean that if you enjoy being around your friends that you're unintelligent. But it does mean that the really smart person you know who spends much of their time alone isn't a sad loner — they probably just like it that way.
In my estimation, the community here is above-average in intelligence so I am curious: How many of you are loners? Do you prefer the company of yourself to the company of others?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @05:55PM
I think you mean that the community here believes themselves to be of above average intelligence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @07:22PM
But do they? I haven't seen any scientific evidence of that.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday December 19 2016, @09:21PM
I think the community here is definitely above average, overall. I think part of the problem with such a statement is that most people think of "below average" as some sort of insult. I still recall a little while back when I was describing a family member to a friend and referred to her as "below average" intellectually. Another friend was aghast -- "How could you say that about a family member??" I simply replied, "No -- I don't mean she's mentally retarded or something. I mean below average. Maybe 40th percentile or something. Just definitely not super intelligent." Similarly, just as "below average intelligence" doesn't mean mentally retarded, "above average" doesn't mean "genius." It just means mostly in the top 50% of the population.
(And before someone starts ranting on how I'm really referring to "median," please note that the English word "average" has a long history of referring to measures of central tendency in general and does NOT always refer to "mean" in general parlance. When the median and mean are relatively close, it's perfectly normal to casually refer to stuff above as "above average" and vice versa.)
Anyhow, as someone who has taught at the secondary and tertiary level, I feel like I've seen a reasonably good sample of what the general population is capable of in terms of reasoning, writing ability, etc. The community here may not be a bunch of geniuses. But "above average" overall? Yeah, I think that's pretty accurate. Even many of the trolls.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 19 2016, @10:38PM
Even many of the trolls.
Trolling is hard work. The people who think its easy haven't done it in earnest or think saying the "n word" is some kind of Shakespearean epic worthy of worship. Meaningful engaged participation on /pol/ is only possible for the cognitive elite.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday December 19 2016, @10:50PM
Even many of the trolls.
Trolling is hard work. . . . Meaningful engaged participation on /pol/ is only possible for the cognitive elite.
Amen! Preach it, Brother!
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday December 19 2016, @11:29PM
Meaningful engaged participation on /pol/ is only possible for the cognitive elite.
Huh. I've never heard someone define trolls as being involved in "meaningful engaged participation" on anything, even a board semi-devoted to trolling. Common definitions of online trolling generally have to do with disruption of whatever discourse is going on. If you're "meaningfully engaged," even in some sort of apparent troll-fest, that doesn't sound like trolling to me. It's kinda like going to a nude party. If you went into a normal party without any clothes on, you'll probably be a disruptive influence. But if you're "meaningfully engaged" by being nude at a nude party, though, your attempt at disruption is no longer violating norms and therefore becomes the normal.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday December 21 2016, @12:25AM
Special snowflakes often assume that somebody is trolling because they got their feelings hurt or somebody slaughtered a sacred cow in a snarky way.
Real trolling is like Dr. Bob md, from the blue site. Just close enough that people get sucked in, but in retrospect obviously not serious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @02:44AM
saying the "n word" is some kind of Shakespearean epic
Othello was a big cuck nigger.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @11:10PM
Welcome to Soylent News, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @10:38PM
All the women on SN are Olympic medal-winning athletes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:46PM
(And before someone starts ranting on how I'm really referring to "median," please note that the English word "average" has a long history of referring to measures of central tendency in general and does NOT always refer to "mean" in general parlance.
This was redundant. Intelligence falls on a bell curve, the mean and median are the same in this case. If someone rants about you meaning median rather than mean in this context, then just call them an idiot and move on.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday December 19 2016, @10:05PM
Of course I'm of above average intelligence. I mean, the vast majority of living beings are bacteria. Do you know the intelligence level of bacteria? I mean, I could be the dumbest person in the world, and still would be of above average intelligence!
You just have to choose your ensemble appropriately. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @11:20PM
Aren't some of those bacteria in the whitehouse? That explains even more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:01PM
Not yet.