Jump to content

Are smart people more introverted than their less intelligent counterparts?


Recommended Posts

Our society is not made for smart people. School makes close to 0 provisions for children who are superior in intellect, those who are less intelligent get far better assistance. Throughout elementary and middle school, you have a paltry token effort being made in the form of "The Gifted Program", where we did jack **** for 1 hour every couple months. All it did was signify we were different. If your kid is retarded all the teachers and principals jump out of their chairs and bend ass-over-head to accommodate the snotty little dumbass. But when a kid is doing even worse than the dumb-dumb, due to the fact that he's bored with school. He gets his ass scolded. Have you ever seen anyone be be creative, and put their hand up, connecting the lesson to something else they've heard or figured out, only to be shot down with a "you'll learn that next year" or a "that's in university". Even if they want to learn more, they can't. They have to learn an average amount.

Socially, it's even worse. You don't even have to be a inherently socially awkward kid. Socially, being different in any way is worse, especially being more intelligent. Not only do people have the usual hate for the odd one out, they also resent you because they're feel inferior, even though they are strong in other areas. And no one understands the stigma. All the pop books and movies have below average heroes that everyone's suppose to identify with, but none have the smart guy, who has just as much, if not more, insecurity with what's expected.

School itself is structured as more of a factory than a learning facility. How many times have you been like "What? I understand how the formula works, but I don't really understand how it fits together...". School teaches you that following procedure, taking notes down mechanically, repeating formulas under your breath, is the way to go? IB is just this but faster, with more work. It is not intellectually engaging, it's attrition.

I mean occasionally some blessed person will say "oh hey, there's a problem here, we better bump this kid up a grade", and while it is a step in the right direction it isn't enough. Kids can go into kindergarten with nearly a year between them. It is nice, but again only a token gesture.

After school it is know different. I'm sure a lot of you have read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell (if you haven't, you should), and he found that intelligence correlates with success in school and success in work only up to a point, and then it is all circumstance. He found that even those who do amazing things with their vast intelligence, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, those guys had the right upbringing, the right opportunity, and the right damn blind fool luck that allowed them to succeed. You do need intelligence to do amazing things, but you also need to work damn hard, and have damn good luck. The smartest man in the world (300-400 IQ or something like that) grew up poor and coloured. Due to his circumstances (his upbringing, his mother falling ill at a certain time), he was never able to find an academic job and ended up as a farm hand.

And throughout life intelligent people have to live with the general lack of naivety that comes with intelligence. If ignorance is bliss, what is intelligence?

I love love your post. I couldn't agree more. I finally can relate to you and this in a very intimate way. My parents have never really cared enough or pushed me academically in order for me to strive. I have been a relatively bad student until end of GCSE. I was terrible in the French system. I tried having this discussion with some friends of mine who are chinese, indian and spanish and I said that they were lucky to have parents to push them because it will make them more apt for the academic challenges and then they love to say no it's all because of me. I think bull**** in my head, they can never admit. The (Big man theory) is overrated circumstances lay the bricks for an infrastructure that allows success. 80% upbringing, 20% personal aptitude. Not necessarily intelligence.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our society is not made for smart people. School makes close to 0 provisions for children who are superior in intellect, those who are less intelligent get far better assistance. Throughout elementary and middle school, you have a paltry token effort being made in the form of "The Gifted Program", where we did jack **** for 1 hour every couple months. All it did was signify we were different. If your kid is retarded all the teachers and principals jump out of their chairs and bend ass-over-head to accommodate the snotty little dumbass. But when a kid is doing even worse than the dumb-dumb, due to the fact that he's bored with school. He gets his ass scolded. Have you ever seen anyone be be creative, and put their hand up, connecting the lesson to something else they've heard or figured out, only to be shot down with a "you'll learn that next year" or a "that's in university". Even if they want to learn more, they can't. They have to learn an average amount.

Socially, it's even worse. You don't even have to be a inherently socially awkward kid. Socially, being different in any way is worse, especially being more intelligent. Not only do people have the usual hate for the odd one out, they also resent you because they're feel inferior, even though they are strong in other areas. And no one understands the stigma. All the pop books and movies have below average heroes that everyone's suppose to identify with, but none have the smart guy, who has just as much, if not more, insecurity with what's expected.

School itself is structured as more of a factory than a learning facility. How many times have you been like "What? I understand how the formula works, but I don't really understand how it fits together...". School teaches you that following procedure, taking notes down mechanically, repeating formulas under your breath, is the way to go? IB is just this but faster, with more work. It is not intellectually engaging, it's attrition.

I mean occasionally some blessed person will say "oh hey, there's a problem here, we better bump this kid up a grade", and while it is a step in the right direction it isn't enough. Kids can go into kindergarten with nearly a year between them. It is nice, but again only a token gesture.

After school it is know different. I'm sure a lot of you have read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell (if you haven't, you should), and he found that intelligence correlates with success in school and success in work only up to a point, and then it is all circumstance. He found that even those who do amazing things with their vast intelligence, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, those guys had the right upbringing, the right opportunity, and the right damn blind fool luck that allowed them to succeed. You do need intelligence to do amazing things, but you also need to work damn hard, and have damn good luck. The smartest man in the world (300-400 IQ or something like that) grew up poor and coloured. Due to his circumstances (his upbringing, his mother falling ill at a certain time), he was never able to find an academic job and ended up as a farm hand.

And throughout life intelligent people have to live with the general lack of naivety that comes with intelligence. If ignorance is bliss, what is intelligence?

I love love your post. I couldn't agree more. I finally can relate to you and this in a very intimate way. My parents have never really cared enough or pushed me academically in order for me to strive. I have been a relatively bad student until end of GCSE. I was terrible in the French system. I tried having this discussion with some friends of mine who are chinese, indian and spanish and I said that they were lucky to have parents to push them because it will make them more apt for the academic challenges and then they love to say no it's all because of me. I think bull**** in my head, they can never admit. The (Big man theory) is overrated circumstances lay the bricks for an infrastructure that allows success. 80% upbringing, 20% personal aptitude. Not necessarily intelligence.

I agree with this. My parents have always pushed me to do well in school, even when I was little. So I always tried my hardest and didn't give up easily. I'm not a genius and I don't always have the best grades in the class, but I usually do well. They never forced me to study or scolded me if I did poorly, which I'm grateful for. If I brought home a bad test they would ask me what went wrong here and there, and they would tell me to fix it so it doesn't happen next time. If my parents never pushed me to do well I honestly don't think I would consider doing IB.

But on the other hand I have seen parents who push their kids too hard. They're overly strict about grades and the kid always gets yelled at for not doing so hotly. This kills their confidence and the kid just gets sick of being yelled at all the time and feeling like they'll never be good enough, so they give up trying. Note that most people I've seen whose parents push them very hard aren't so bright to begin with.

So basically what I'm saying is that a bit of pressure from your parents is good, but too much can be just as bad as too little.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only know what I've seen so I will stick to that and not comment on other people's experiences. When I look around at my friends and people I see regularly I struggle to choose those I’d define as “intelligent” in the sense I feel it is being used in this thread.

I know some people that are very well rounded; they can do a variety of skills and handle most situations adequately. For example they get average marks, can handle social situations as well as the next person, can learn a sport, and are capable of learning different skills.

Now if I compare this to some people who excel in one particular area I cannot choose who I think is smarter. I have a friend who is an extraordinary mathematician, although I don’t have an IB mark share he was in the top few percent of our countries math courses and is now in university and excelling in mathematics. However he could hardly write a sentence that sounded intelligible and his friends constantly had to enable him in any social interaction.

Now I’m left wondering which of these two groups is genuinely more intelligent. Is it the ones who are well balanced and capable of many forms of thought or the ones who excel incredibly in one type of thought?

Curiously I know another student, he is obviously smart but in a different way. He has an uncanny knack for understanding people and their psychology; he is great with people, can make them see anything his way and in general gets along with everyone. Is he less intelligent than the math whiz? I’m hesitant to say that as I feel they are both smart just in different ways.

Now back to the original question regarding introversion; I would not lay down a blanket statement that intelligent people are more introverted. Not do to any statistic about number of friends versus IQ but because I am a firm believer in many types of intelligence. Of course some who suffer from a complete lack of social skills will be more introverted (or simply like their space, there are more than one reason to be an introvert) than those who excel with people, but this has very little to do with intelligence and is simple what one is good at. Some people are excellent at abstract thought; some people are incredible artists, some great at math and others excel with people, but they can all be equally intelligent and still have different degrees of introversion/extroversion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only know what I've seen so I will stick to that and not comment on other people's experiences. When I look around at my friends and people I see regularly I struggle to choose those I’d define as “intelligent” in the sense I feel it is being used in this thread.

I know some people that are very well rounded; they can do a variety of skills and handle most situations adequately. For example they get average marks, can handle social situations as well as the next person, can learn a sport, and are capable of learning different skills.

Now if I compare this to some people who excel in one particular area I cannot choose who I think is smarter. I have a friend who is an extraordinary mathematician, although I don’t have an IB mark share he was in the top few percent of our countries math courses and is now in university and excelling in mathematics. However he could hardly write a sentence that sounded intelligible and his friends constantly had to enable him in any social interaction.

Now I’m left wondering which of these two groups is genuinely more intelligent. Is it the ones who are well balanced and capable of many forms of thought or the ones who excel incredibly in one type of thought?

Curiously I know another student, he is obviously smart but in a different way. He has an uncanny knack for understanding people and their psychology; he is great with people, can make them see anything his way and in general gets along with everyone. Is he less intelligent than the math whiz? I’m hesitant to say that as I feel they are both smart just in different ways.

Now back to the original question regarding introversion; I would not lay down a blanket statement that intelligent people are more introverted. Not do to any statistic about number of friends versus IQ but because I am a firm believer in many types of intelligence. Of course some who suffer from a complete lack of social skills will be more introverted (or simply like their space, there are more than one reason to be an introvert) than those who excel with people, but this has very little to do with intelligence and is simple what one is good at. Some people are excellent at abstract thought; some people are incredible artists, some great at math and others excel with people, but they can all be equally intelligent and still have different degrees of introversion/extroversion.

that's exactly what i was trying to say! I agree

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I know plenty of extremely smart individuals who cannot sit still for a minute, or absolutely cannot stop talking.

Whether they have ADHD, dyslexia, or whatever, I think this in fact ENHANCES their intelligence in an area which most "studious" people can never think of achieving because they care about things which "studious" people don't really care about.

Who is to say who is intelligent and who is not?

Like Danika said, there are many different "types" of intelligence.

Someone who gets straight C's is not necessarily stupid. I know a boy who is like that and he made is own working calculator out of cardboard, wires, and plastic!

I think in IB we (in general) often look down on ppl who are considered "less intelligent" just because they think on a different wavelength than we do, or just because they don't study as much as we do. Just because a person studies or gets good grades or sounds intelligent doesn't mean he/she is. Smart-ness should be measured not by grades, which is really such a bad measure, because some people (like me) just enjoy CRAMMING (which is definitely NOT smart!).

In fact, to some point I think studying numbs the brain to a certain extent where we lose a certain creativity and spontaneity that is required in other "types" of intelligence.

As Lord Henry from "The Picture of Dorian Gray" says, "We live in an age that reads too much to be wise, and thinks too much to be beautiful".

And in "The President", one of the characters says "What good does all this studying do you? None whatever!"

"It is tact rather than knowledge you need if you want to get on".

Oh how true, how true.

How ironic that I am in IB! :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this. My parents have always pushed me to do well in school, even when I was little. So I always tried my hardest and didn't give up easily. I'm not a genius and I don't always have the best grades in the class, but I usually do well. They never forced me to study or scolded me if I did poorly, which I'm grateful for. If I brought home a bad test they would ask me what went wrong here and there, and they would tell me to fix it so it doesn't happen next time. If my parents never pushed me to do well I honestly don't think I would consider doing IB.

But on the other hand I have seen parents who push their kids too hard. They're overly strict about grades and the kid always gets yelled at for not doing so hotly. This kills their confidence and the kid just gets sick of being yelled at all the time and feeling like they'll never be good enough, so they give up trying. Note that most people I've seen whose parents push them very hard aren't so bright to begin with.

So basically what I'm saying is that a bit of pressure from your parents is good, but too much can be just as bad as too little.

I'd agree that in most cases it's important that parents put some amount of pressure on their kids. However one of the things I most appreciate about my mum is the fact that she put zero academic pressure on me. If I came home with a 90 on a test, she was never one of those parents who'd ask 'where did you lose the other ten points?', and I'm eternally grateful for that. In fact she did quite the opposite - she'd say that my grades were good, but that wasn't all there was to life...she'd push me to talk to people more, hang out with people my own age more. Lots of kids may be completely self motivated when it comes to academics,but kind of lose their way socially, so I think parents play an important role in making sure that kids turn out well rounded rather than one dimensional.

And in answer to the main thread, I think that people conventionally defined as 'smart' are (from what I have observed) either rather introverted or completely extroverted. It's a mix, but in my experience it leans towards introverted. That could be because they're so studious that they don't have the time to socialize, or that they're more comfortable with their group of friends who think and speak like they do. Unfortunately high school is a vicious place, where one can be punished by their peers for being smart - and introversion could merely be a defense mechanism. Maybe a better place to judge this would be in a university environment where the students are to a large extent on the same plane at least academically and the playing field is more level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the very smart people shouldn't be introverted since they don't actually study. They've got all the time in the world to socialize.

I suppose that's true...

That could be because they're so studious that they don't have the time to socialize, or that they're more comfortable with their group of friends who think and speak like they do.

I'll stick to the latter part of my statement - not socializing due to lack of inclination rather than lack of opportunity or ability to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

School itself is structured as more of a factory than a learning facility. How many times have you been like "What? I understand how the formula works, but I don't really understand how it fits together...". School teaches you that following procedure, taking notes down mechanically, repeating formulas under your breath, is the way to go? IB is just this but faster, with more work. It is not intellectually engaging, it's attrition.

This is so true. Yet, it's questions like this that really help with someone's understanding of something. Why should I remember to use this formula if I personally think they're unrelated? I'm being taught to think critically and at the same time believe some math is coincidental? I do think it's harsh you claiming IB to be just that but faster; it depends on your teacher.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The really smart people hide the fact that they're smart. Contrary to popular belief, being smart is a hindrance after a certain point.

Only stupid people want to appear smart.

I see what you mean; those who are confident in their intelligence don't need to be constantly reminded by others that they're smart. But I think there is some worth in having other people respect you for your intelligence - networking, for example. If others know you're keen in certain subject areas, when they hear about opportunities and competitions in those fields they'll be more likely to tell you about it. Some really competitive folks want to pick the best partner or teammates possible for certain projects or competitions, and having them willing to work with you can sometimes help your situation too. And I know it's pretty terrible, but there are also some people who seem to treat their peers based on merit....the ones who will generally treat you with more respect and be more friendly to you only if they think you're intelligent and on par with themselves. Avoiding the sour taste of them giving you less respect than you deserve, and being able to contribute to discussions and group work without them automatically shooting your ideas down or making condescending comments can sometimes aid your productivity too.

But yeah, I gotta agree with you.....I really admire an intelligent person who's humble. The ones who run around the room parading their 100%'s after every test can kinda get unnerving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm not a very sociable person because I don't speak with my peers exesively although I do have a handful of mates I talk to frequently (boarding "brothers") and I'm not the person to make the first step in any kind of relationship but give me a couple bottles of beer and I turn into a very extroverted person... I'm not talking about drunk just it just takes away the fear of people judging me based on my appearance (I'm small and look more like 14 than 18).

I'm not overly studious so according to Narcissts definition and and other peoples opionon I wouldn't be considered to be intelligent - I'm predicted 44 and my subjects are as follows:

English A1 Higher

Maths Higher

Physics Higher

French B Standard

History Standard

Biology Standard

I was told this isn't the easiest combo and and it*s definitely not as easy as some other of my fellow students "programme" so what would you guys say about that :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

You also have to define introvert. On the inside I'm a total introvert, I'd rather be at home reading a book than at that party everyone's gonna be at, or on FaceBook for that matter (I don't even have a FaceBook). I'm just adaptive enough that I've learned to make myself appear less introverted, to make myself more socially acceptable. The trouble is in deciding who's being themselves, or, if that loud-mouth in the corner is the way he is because he's making a conscientious effort to be less of an outcast and be included in conversation.

Edit:

Now I’m left wondering which of these two groups is genuinely more intelligent. Is it the ones who are well balanced and capable of many forms of thought or the ones who excel incredibly in one type of thought?

After thinking about this for a bit, it's pretty obvious that IB kind of impresses an answer on us. The whole point of the different categories of classes, CAS, our EE and the different types of IA are to make us well rounded people. If IB thought that people who only knew math and can't write a coherent sentence were "smart" they wouldn't push for them to diversify. When we look at the way the IB organization operates it's to make people smarter by balancing them out, not be specializing them. I'm not sure I agree with IB's opinion on the matter, but it is an opinion that affects all of us.

Edited by ezra
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There really isn't a definition of 'smart' or 'intelligent' that doesn't undergo some person subjection. All the examples are listed previous: genius in a certain subject, well-rounded, highly apt at social skills - it really depends on what you consider 'intelligent'. And it is even harder in particular when you're talking so broadly about it. If you were to narrow it down to subjects and the intelligent people within, that'd make the comparision easier, but then you'd be disregarding all the people who are well-rounded but not particularly accelerated in a single subject.

But going beyond the debate about what does or does not define intelligence, since there is really no right or wrong answer on a matter of opinion, and onto the actual question of introversion or extroversion? Personally I don't believe it particularly matters if you are or aren't an IB student, or gifted or intelligent or whatever synonym you'd like to use. Plenty of people are stupid and introverted or smart and extroverted and vise versa. Just because you're not acedemically inclined doesn't equate you to be loud and obnoxious. Perhaps there may be a large amount of introverted/reclusive people in your class but that's probably all due to the fact that it's a small group of people. My class is only 17, and some years they've been as low as 7. I don't really believe their personalities are to be caused by their intelligence or lack thereof.

At least, that's my opinion on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would divide intelligent people into 2 groups:

1. Intelligent people who are smart and can manage their time to still socialise and yet are doing well academically.

2. Intelligent people who are veeeeery kiasu, so ambitious and unfortunately could not manage to socialise.

People in group 2 tend to be introverted. They do not have very close friend nor do they think about love & relationships. They tend to use their spare time to study or do work rather than talking to their friends or socialising. People like this tend to not trust other people quite easily. That's why they seldom convey their feelings and they face some difficulties in finding partners or even just best friends. They prefer keeping secrets within themselves and not share their knowledge. I know some people of this group 2 type but they do have friends, just they don't talk much it seems.

I also know some people of group 1 type and there are some in my class. They are smart yet they can still socialise. They are sometimes loud I need to admit and some of them just do not look that smart ;) surprisingly :)

It does depend. Generally it is thought that those intelligent people are more introverted than those who are less intelligent. But it is wrong to say that all intelligent people are introverted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be some clarity on what is 'intelligent'

High IQ? Studious?

Book-smarts or Street-smarts?

I would say studious people tend to be more introvert because they tend to spend most of their childhood years studying and doing well academically while other people learned social skills. Of course, i also know many people who are both social and studious.

Intelligent people can be very social and extroverted.

Intelligence implies someone who knows how to say the right things, how to be interesting, and how to be friendly.

Level of intelligence is also quite subjective. Intelligent compared to who?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say studious people tend to be more introvert because they tend to spend most of their childhood years studying and doing well academically while other people learned social skills. Of course, i also know many people who are both social and studious.

Intelligent people can be very social and extroverted.

Intelligence implies someone who knows how to say the right things, how to be interesting, and how to be friendly.

Level of intelligence is also quite subjective. Intelligent compared to who?

I would dispute the fact that studious people are more introverted because they spend their time studying. I don't think your habits can determine your personality, it's your personality that determines your habits. Studious people tend to be introverted because being introverted lends itself to also being studious.

On the other hand you have very introverted people who aren't studious at all.

I know that they correlate quite a lot, but I'm not a big fan of equating introversion/extraversion with studiousness/sociability as if they're the same. You can have very studious extraverts and introverts who, whilst not mega sociable, also aren't studious. They don't replace socialising with studying, they can replace it with whatever they want -- including being sociable, just with a smaller group of friends and in different ways. Basically what I mean is that your personality type doesn't make you studious or sociable necessarily. You can see some very generalised correlation in some people, but that's it.

I also disagree with this:

1. Intelligent people who are smart and can manage their time to still socialise and yet are doing well academically.

2. Intelligent people who are veeeeery kiasu, so ambitious and unfortunately could not manage to socialise.

...what happened to people who are extraverted but also very studious -- in fact more so than the introverts? I knew plenty of them!

All in all, I don't think you can start talking about introverts like they're all studious or extraverts like they're all not. Intelligence =/= working hard and being studious, and likewise personality types =/= working hard and being studious. I also personally think that intelligence =/= personality type too, but yeah :yes: It seems to me that we categorise people and generalise traits to them far too readily. Reading some of these answers is like reading a rather naff online personality quiz in which you're either A, B or C and that describes everything about you. There aren't only X number of types of people. People are much more complicated than that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Many great replies have already been given, mentioning various types of intelligence, etc. On the whole, I would certainly say that while society tends to view this as the trend- this is not the case, at all. Yes, the stereotypical 'nerd' does tend to be a study-stay-home kind of guy/girl, however I would argue that the stereotypical 'nerd' is, like the stereotypical homosexual, in the dwindling minority. Irrespective of how mathematically or linguistically 'gifted'- and I use this term reluctantly, as I despise its connotations and elitism- one is, he/she can only have access to the one knowledge bank which is his/her own. The most revolutionary ideas in history have not been the product of the single individual- yes, we ascribe fame to Einstein, Darwin, Tolstoy, John Nash- but these individuals are only the face of something far more encompassing and transcendent (of themselves): a body of knowledge and experience built up over the years, by way of thousands of words, conversations, games, and relationships- which now informs and is the individual, insofar as the individual is him/herself. It is via social interaction that people learn to appreciate, and indeed open themselves to, the vast array of human perspectives which compound and interact to generate a view of life and existence termed 'intelligence'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...