"genius" vs. societal adpatation/happiness (was Re: Greetings..)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Scott Badger

On Sun, 13 Dec 1998 08:32:00 -0600, Scott wrote:

>
>>I disagree. I think geniuses are both dramatically brighter and
>>noticeably more psychically stable than average persons, in the vast
>>majority of cases (as if our database was so very large, ho, ho). I
>>think brilliant cranks are a yet another urban legend.
>>
>>'gene
>>
>
>I agree with Anders and Gene. Just look at how psychologically
>fit and socially adept the members of this list are . . . right? Just
>want to add that the logical downward extension of this argument
>is that "ignorance is bliss". Uh, I don't think so.

>I agree with Anders and Gene. Just look at how psychologically
>fit and socially adept the members of this list are . . . right? Just
>want to add that the logical downward extension of this argument
>is that "ignorance is bliss". Uh, I don't think so.

So, you're a psychologist, Scott: In general, how well-adapted to society are we extropian/transhumanist/cryonicist types?

I'm a "genius" as defined by my >=98th percentile scores on certain standardized "guessing" tests, and I'm sure that most of the others on this email list are as well. All it means, in some respects, is that, as a child, I preferred the company of books and ideas to that of my fellow humans, at least to a certain degree.

Am I happier/more stable/more well-adapted in general than most people? I wouldn't say so.
But that doesn't go for all geniuses: My cousin Scott seems a happy person.

On the other hand, the prisons are full of maladjusted sorts, who, to all appearances, are just about as far as possible from being "geniuses."

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Scott Badger