Sociopath Community

But do you see how much like when Med corrects someone on a word and people naturally make that the focal point, when you say someone is controlling they'd naturally respond to it? That they respond I think is natural.

I don't see the whole dominance thing when I'm mostly responding to your points, especially when I wanted otherwise to explore the possibility that the problem was me being smart, but you chose not to explore that so we went with your thing instead. I think you've chosen the topic here, not me. Dont you see how I'm merely responding and mirroring you?

Am I really going with yes/no only? I'd say I'm rather elaborating on your ideas and you are mostly shooting them down, for example when I suggested that you're controlling this conversation to a greater degree than i, clearly you were the one in the judges' chair.

Yes, I saw the other words in place of 'controlling'. What I meant was moreso that what you mean by dominating appears to be rather different. You could really box anyone as controlling orbdominating or topping if you make the definition loose enough  which is what I suspect is happening here. If even you yourself fit your own shoebox and we're both controlling, and everyone is controlling, then I don't really see the point being much more than a wild guess?

What I mean by controlling is entirely different of course but we're going with your definition. Ironically, by my own definition, I am controlling, and you are not, but in a different way than what you mean.

I'm more inquisitive than people you.know in the sense that I ask more questions than the people aroumd me to a degree that I need to be self aware of because it puts people off sometimes when they become the center of the discussion but I'm now moreso focusing on this discussion. If you'd like me to be more inquisitive with you, then let me know.

However, maybe I do need to be a bit more charitable and recognize that you aren't insisting on any particular topic nor pursue things that I clearly am not interested in, which in itself is a nice conversational skill, and in that regard I've been in more control of the conversation, and maybe that was your point all along, in which case I can respond to that.

Jada said: 

But do you see how much like when Med corrects someone on a word and people naturally make that the focal point, when you say someone is controlling they'd naturally respond to it?

You think people responding to the one controlling the topic of discussion, without otherwise changing the topic, makes them in charge of it? 

I don't see the whole dominance thing when I'm mostly responding to your points, especially when I wanted otherwise to explore the possibility that the problem was me being smart, but you chose not to explore that so we went with your thing instead. I think you've chosen the topic here, not me.

Intelligence, Independent Variable. 

I asked how your intelligence as a hindrance could be explored in an earlier post and you chose to ignore it. I'm starting to think you don't actually want the discussion to go anywhere. 

Dont you see how I'm merely responding and mirroring you?

I see the attempt anyway, but the differences show what you might not be seeing which in turn still tells me something about you. What you aren't seeing while attempting to imitate what's in front of you is somewhat telling. 

Pointing it out is otherwise you attempting to invalidate the discussion, another attempt at controlling it. How are you supposed to find anything novel that way? 

Yes, I saw the other words in place of 'controlling'. What I meant was moreso that what you mean by dominating appears to be rather different. You could really box anyone as controlling or dominating or topping if you make the definition loose enough  which is what I suspect is happening here. If even you yourself fit your own shoebox and we're both controlling, and everyone is controlling, then I don't really see the point being much more than a wild guess?

You seem very reluctant to explore this further. 

I'm more inquisitive than people you.know in the sense that I ask more questions than the people aroumd me to a degree that I need to be self aware of because it puts people off sometimes when they become the center of the discussion but I'm now moreso focusing on this discussion. If you'd like me to be more inquisitive with you, then let me know.

You haven't met the people I know though, you have no way of knowing that. 

My point is moreso that discussions are more like a deck of cards. After the next person is done you can place your own card  or skip a turn. But it's all imperfect analogs. I think in the end you're exerting control over certain areas at different levels of dominance, and so do I. What i'm not seeing is how this will help the people around me understand Quantum Field Theory.

How my intelligence as a hindrance could be explored? Much the same way as any other hindrance could be. How to convey complex ideas better, how to elevate those around me to the same level, how to teach people better, how to find people who are likeminded, etc, etc. I guess it could be explored the same way as any other topic, by placing yourself in my lived reality. I must've missed the question.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm reluctant to explore the topic further. It's fine, it doesn't really describe me, but for the sake of a thought experiment I am still happy to go through the control thing. I think you're not quite understanding my problem though, maybe due to poor explanation on my part. It looks to me like you're almost defensive, which concerns me.

Jada said: 

My point is moreso that discussions are more like a deck of cards. After the next person is done you can place your own card  or skip a turn. But it's all imperfect analogs. I think in the end you're exerting control over certain areas at different levels of dominance, and so do I. What i'm not seeing is how this will help the people around me understand Quantum Field Theory. 

Is it more important for the people around you to understand quantum field theory than it is for you to enjoy novel experiences? 

If you want novelty you need to be willing to let go of the steering wheel, otherwise you'll always have room to presuppose the outcomes. 

How my intelligence as a hindrance could be explored? Much the same way as any other hindrance could be. How to convey complex ideas better, how to elevate those around me to the same level, how to teach people better, how to find people who are likeminded, etc, etc. I guess it could be explored the same way as any other topic, by placing yourself in my lived reality. I must've missed the question.

I mean what are the drawbacks of it that you'd say are universal across Intelligence as a whole. 

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm reluctant to explore the topic further. It's fine, it doesn't really describe me, but for the sake of a thought experiment I am still happy to go through the control thing. I think you're not quite understanding my problem though, maybe due to poor explanation on my part. It looks to me like you're almost defensive, which concerns me.

Because I said your attempt at mirroring had room to be revealing regardless, or because I contradicted your claim towards the end? 

This is sort of what I mean when I say I feel like you're misunderstanding me. I don't lack novelty in experience. I lack novelty in intellectual discussions. Fixing what you're suggesting, even if that were a problem, isnt going to fix the fact that Im alone in my intellectual pursuits.

The quantum field theory is an example, Most intellectual pursuits require a broad basis for discussion. Without understanding classical mechanics, understanding relativity and quantum mechanics is difficult. Without understandimg relativity and quantum mechanics and advanced math, understanding quantum field theory is difficult. Without understanding quantum field theory and general relativity it's difficult to understand string theory, and so on.

You could draw similar arguments for other discussion topics where there's a basis for discussion that is formed through a decade of study. Most of the topics, as I've come to understand later, are intertwined. It's really astonishing how much similarity there is between thermodynamics and sociology. However, I can't discuss such topics, and so I'm left to myself.

I'd even go one step further that this applies also to new things, where the fact that I have aucb a broad basis where to build from that I tend to catch up on topics, even new ones, too quickly such that I'm already ahead quite soon. Like I said, the only exception is true specialists, where usually it takes me some time to get to the same level as them. Those discussions I guess I enjoy to some degree, while they last.

What are the drawbacks of intelligence universally? Are we talking about just IQ, or the broader sense as in you also think and build your mental framework, like I'm talking about? If the latter, then the obvious drawback is that if you're in the top 0.01% of the population then it's hard to find people who can keep up with you intellectually. But I wouldn't say it's a "universal drawback" in that many people don't mind being the smartest person in.the room constantly, or they find a way to elevate the conversation partners. What is a drawback is largely subjective.

Jada said: 

This is sort of what I mean when I say I feel like you're misunderstanding me. I don't lack novelty in experience. I lack novelty in intellectual discussions. Fixing what you're suggesting, even if that were a problem, isnt going to fix the fact that Im alone in my intellectual pursuits.

Oh, okay. So you'd say your non-intellectual conversations are otherwise still fun and stimulating for you, rather than predictable? 🤨

You had made it sound more like conversations as a whole were becoming predictable over how much you already know in advance, rather than that it had a lack of academic quality along with novelty moreover how you are running out of things for it. From there it seemed you were saying that you feel detached from other people over how they can't keep up with your speed with the writing giving the impression that you felt less capable of talking to people over your superior brain, and that even further you'd try to railroad them on your subjects to force common ground rather than expand towards their interests. 

If the problem is only over it being "intellectual", that depends on where you wall that off. I figured that had the room to mean nearly anyone's specialization, thereby offering the room for novelty by allowing them to control the conversation towards unknown territory.

If you are lonely from being 'smart' that's one thing, but if you mean "lonely in my niche specialty" then yeah go figure. 

The quantum field theory is an example, Most intellectual pursuits require a broad basis for discussion. Without understanding classical mechanics, understanding relativity and quantum mechanics is difficult. Without understandimg relativity and quantum mechanics and advanced math, understanding quantum field theory is difficult. Without understanding quantum field theory and general relativity it's difficult to understand string theory, and so on. 

You could draw similar arguments for other discussion topics where there's a basis for discussion that is formed through a decade of study. Most of the topics, as I've come to understand later, are intertwined. It's really astonishing how much similarity there is between thermodynamics and sociology. However, I can't discuss such topics, and so I'm left to myself.

Why not pursue a new intellectual pursuit to broaden what you have room to talk about with people then, if it all intertwines? If you master more things, then you'll be more likely to find others who know something you know already, allowing for a more advanced common ground to expand from at the start. 

Psychology and Philosophy thankfully has room to talk to people at all levels, over how the subject is over people itself. 

If the latter, then the obvious drawback is that if you're in the top 0.01% of the population then it's hard to find people who can keep up with you intellectually.

What about that is a problem though? 

But I wouldn't say it's a "universal drawback" in that many people don't mind being the smartest person in.the room constantly, or they find a way to elevate the conversation partners. What is a drawback is largely subjective.

What about it then is holding you back in relation to this, impatience with other people? 

Yes,.I've not explained myself well. However,, I'd say it's the former. I'm alone in intellectual pursuits, although I would say I am especially alone in Physics, and even more alone in my specialization, where I know I am the best in the world.

The problem in all of this is that quantum field theory thing. How can someone who has never thought for 20 years be able to hold a discussion with someone who has dedicated their life to studying? It's like asking someone who can't do elementary calculus do 6-dimensional differential geometry.

Just like someone who knows advanced mathematics may find it easy to understand Quantum Field Theory without having ever touched the subject, it's easy for me to understand a broad range of topics faster and at better depth than others. That's what I meant by me being smart. No matter what the topic, the theyvall map back to the same fundamentals. Law, medicine, biology, psychology, Physics, math, philosophy, religion, it's all different ways to look at the same thing. I can mathematically derive the basic premises used in court under a few standard assumptions. The rest is then all reusing the same concepts that I've routinely used for decades now, just a ton simpler. Even when extending my field of view to new things, they all utilise the same fundamental knowledge basis to build off of, and so ultimately it's way easier for me to understand them than it is for other people.

There are some nuances, but nothing truly novel or surprising.

What about all this that is a problem? I feel the need to discuss my biggest passion in life with people but there is nobody capable of truly challenging me or providing something genuinely new that I hadn't thought of.

Jada said: 

Yes,.I've not explained myself well. However,, I'd say it's the former. I'm alone in intellectual pursuits, although I would say I am especially alone in Physics, and even more alone in my specialization, where I know I am the best in the world.

For the lack of novelty in the subject matter itself it's like getting to the end of a novel series; Short of fanfiction or a reboot you've hit the end of what that story has to tell. Unless people add to it themselves, from there all that remains to talk about is referential.

To that end there's somewhat of a futility to trying to teach your subjects to other people with the expectation of newer answers coming from it, unless something can be found from crossing it into other references. So again, why not take up other pursuits to intertwine them while also broadening the range for common ground in discussion? 

The problem in all of this is that quantum field theory thing. How can someone who has never thought for 20 years be able to hold a discussion with someone who has dedicated their life to studying? 

If you ask me anyway, by talking about something else. I can get stimulation and fix that loneliness bug from conversations that stick to their strengths, and speaking personally anyway that's been enough for me. By listening to them I can also see if there's room to tie in things I already know, but even within that there's how differently they see or handle what is otherwise the same thing, the room for variation in appraisal. 

To that end I'm still left asking what's stopped you from finding people with similar enough interests online. While maybe your specialization might not be so easy to find a match for, the broader subjects ought to have others gifted in them who also use an internet connection like you do. 

Just like someone who knows advanced mathematics may find it easy to understand Quantum Field Theory without having ever touched the subject, it's easy for me to understand a broad range of topics faster and at better depth than others.

If it's easy for you to understand a broad range of topics faster and more in depth than others, then you should have no problem finding people who have at least one of those interests as their main focus. 

That's what I meant by me being smart. No matter what the topic, the theyvall map back to the same fundamentals. Law, medicine, biology, psychology, Physics, math, philosophy, religion, it's all different ways to look at the same thing.

While I agree that there are fundamental links between everything, and that knowing those fundamentals can speed up the early chapters, I wouldn't go as far as to say "it's all different ways to look at the same thing" as if their utility is otherwise directly interchangeable. Barring the person being qualified in both, I would not for example hire someone who is primarily a philosopher to do surgery in spite of how both may have opinions over life and death and over how both work with people. 

At first glance I'd see tying all of those together, rather than exploring the links between them, as an oversimplification. It's like how there's around 50 words for "snow" in the Eskimo language; to someone who only says 'snow' this might seem redundant, but for someone who lives 'snow' those words are taken as distinctions between them that are worth noting. 

To that end there's always more to learn in spite of the connections between everything. 

I can mathematically derive the basic premises used in court under a few standard assumptions. The rest is then all reusing the same concepts that I've routinely used for decades now, just a ton simpler. Even when extending my field of view to new things, they all utilise the same fundamental knowledge basis to build off of, and so ultimately it's way easier for me to understand them than it is for other people.

There are some nuances, but nothing truly novel or surprising.

What about all this that is a problem? I feel the need to discuss my biggest passion in life with people but there is nobody capable of truly challenging me or providing something genuinely new that I hadn't thought of.

So in less words, you are disappointed that you don't feel challenged in your greatest strength? 

This kind of thing seems similar to the Bruce Lee situation. He was one of the best martial artists, and the standard he lived up to didn't really shouldn't offer him much room to talk to his peers about it directly, yet he found ways to incorporate it into everything he and others did. Through this he could both train his strength and broaden his horizons enough to find more ways of talking about it, in words others would understand. 

He found ways to translate martial arts into dancing, acting, child rearing, nutrition, philosophy, even writing, and through these other subjects he was able to explore his strength further than without it. When his own focus no longer was enough for him he sought other ones that could cross-train into eachother, and that seemed to be enough for him. 

I can use what I.know in cooking and become the beast chef in the whole world. However, I still will feel lonely in wanting to pursue things in depth.

The philosopher thing doesnt quite work insofar as you still need to learn howbto do surgery. Howvlever, if a philosopher learned how to do surgeries better than amtone in a week, then I'd have no issues letting the philosopher do surgeries.

I feel like we've exhausted this already. Thank you for listening to my rant.