It isn’t just the overanalysis of day to day occurrences, the worrying about tangibles and the ratifying possibilities of every decision, the playing out of realistic hypotheticals - there are vast categories of intangibles to mull over which will really get you down if you consider them deeply enough.
Most hyper-intelligent people I know are more or less consumed by existential dread. Some cope better than others - and that’s usually environmental.
I found building a business ultimately unfulfilling, as no matter what success we found, it all just felt like so much artifice, sand castles in a playpit - and in the meantime I’d worry about the collapse of civilisation (my god, it’s a razor’s edge we blunder blithely along), the insignificance of all human existence in an immense and dispassionate universe, whether anything is even real, anyway, and then, what does real even mean. Down the miserable fucking rabbit hole you go.
A change of scene was good. I dig holes, build things, cut and plant trees, sow seeds, and while the dread is still most definitely there, it’s bearable with a more direct connection to the here and now, the simplicity and challenges of the changing seasons, of just surviving in nature. Oh, and appreciating just how little control I actually have over my environment - my decisions don’t mean shit more often than not, as nature usually has other ideas, and a coin toss is just as good.
Which makes me wonder if perhaps the problem isn’t intelligence itself, but what the intelligent choose to do with it - typically some highly abstracted field, where it’s easy to feel disconnected from everything, and where the decisions to be made are complex and deeply interconnected in their inputs and outputs.
It’d be interesting to slice the Mensa survey by profession. It might be stronger than the IQ correlation.
Like watching someone take 5 seconds per keystroke because they have to hunt and peck on the keyboard while slowly and deliberately sounding out the letters they're typing?
You know that feeling of wanting to just push them out of the way because you could get whatever completely done by the time they finish the next step in the process?
You ever felt like grabbing someone's face and just point blank ask them why they don't "get it"? Because it's the simplest thing in the world to you?
Now imagine your entire life was that. Of essentially having to wait for people to catch up to where you were. Couple that with the nagging thought in the back of your mind that you could be the one that's wrong because so many people are on the other side of the issue. What do they see that you don't? And then when they finally do catch up, treat it like it was the most obvious thing ever.
I can see how that would wear on people. How that would make them depressed, how they would be difficult to relate to, how it would be difficult to communicate with them.
Sometimes I feel saying that intelligent people have difficulties relating to people or communicating with others is akin to saying it's difficult to run as fast as Usain Bolt. It's like "No shit, but it's not a problem on Bolt's end".
No, because you should shape your life differently in that case. The people I know who were both intelligent and depressed dramatically improved their life by doing less thinking.
Exercise, play a musical instrument, explore nature, help people in need, go after that girl/guy you like.
But no. Instead, those aforementioned people spent the majority of their time doing stuff that require intelligence: solving hard problems, debating others "for fun", philosophising. And then, at the end of the day, they felt sorry for themselves because they were oh so intelligent.
Luckily they fixed their issues, and I'm convinced that most people who fall in this category can do the same.
And why is it on the intelligent to "do less thinking" instead of the world to understand that they can't think on the same level?
We don't ask those with extreme physical gifts to sell themselves short in order to accommodate those less gifted. We don't ask those with virtuoso talents to "do less creativity".
Why must those with extreme intellectual gifts "think less"?
That does them and the world a disservice. Why can't we accept them as we accept every other category of people.
I clearly speak of people I know: "The people I know", "Those aforementioned people". Also, they often did do one, maybe two of these things, but their life wasn't balanced at all.
> why is it on the intelligent to "do less thinking"
The other alternative you offer is hoping that the world will change, which it obviously wont.
> Why must those with extreme intellectual gifts "think less"
Nobody should think too much.
> Why can't we accept them as we accept every other category of people.
Intelligent people are accepted. Understood? Not so much, but they are accepted.
When you're depressed due to your intelligence, you should fix your issues. Learn how to cope with things, talk to a therapist, spend more time doing and less time thinking, talk to people, stop feeling sorry for yourself, take responsibility for your life.
Accepted because you conform to a certain societal expectation is not really acceptance. And if they were truly understood
> I clearly speak of people I know: "The people I know", "Those aforementioned people". Also, they often did do one, maybe two of these things, but their life wasn't balanced at all.
So not just anecdotal data, but highly subjective anecdotal data. That's not convincing at all.
> Nobody should think too much.
Nobody should run too fast, lift too much, be too tall, be too short, be too good at anything. Don't ever risk making the average even the slightest bit uncomfortable.
Social acceptance heavily depends on conformity. Groups don't welcome you if you do not conform to group identity. This is why not every group works for every individual. Sure, sometimes groups should overcome prejudice or stigma, but when you're "difficult to relate to", or "difficult to communicate with" (your examples), then most groups won't be welcoming and I find that quite understandable. Luckily however, some groups (Mensa perhaps) will welcome you. That's usually also why such groups are founded in the first place.
> So not just anecdotal data
This was the entire structure of my first comment, and I never hid that one bit.
> but highly subjective anecdotal data
Those people were way happier after they lived more balanced lives, but happiness is an emotion and thus subjective, that's definitely true.
> Nobody should run too fast, lift too much, be too tall, be too short, be too good at anything. Don't ever risk making the average even the slightest bit uncomfortable.
This is just twisting my argument into an apagoge.
I mainly wrote my comments to offer a different view to the depressed intelligent people, as it often feels like there are quite a few here on HN. I've met very smart and depressed people, and they often felt very sorry for themselves and blamed the world. I tried to convince them that a different approach would help more, and they live way happier lives now. I know that's anecdotal, I know that's subjective. I never hid that, but just tried to offer my take on the issue.
I've since realized that "herd mentality" is a totally functional survival mechanism, and as long as you don't think logically the other parts of the brain have no problem accepting that culture isn't just some made up game of pretend, or that popularity is a reasonable judgement of correctness.
I've met many another unique thinker who couldn't understand how so many people could be so blind to things right in front of their face. And it drives them a little bit crazy too.
Seriously: watch for smart “illogical” people and be prepared to have your mind blown by just how smart some people are at something you are likely subpar at (your comment fits a stereotype of mine).
Plus it's not always beneficial. For instance people like to heavily research before they vote in major elections but it's not like that's worth the effort.
And if feeling like an outsider is classified as a type of poor mental health or anxiety, well...
I know from personal experience that one's mental wellbeing affects how well I can absorb information. I think it’s also pretty clear that being better-off financially, as comes with higher levels of education, lowers certain types of stressors in one’s life.
It's open for debate though, whether the effect of depression (and other mental disorders) could have just as much influence as IQ when it comes to educational attainment.
Both factors can play their own part (though they may be correlated with each other as well)
That stands to reason, if we assume that evolution arrives at largely efficient (specifically locally optimal) solutions: any trait that comes in handy would be selected for until its negative consequences (on average) just compensate any further increase.
This would predict that higher intelligence is correlated with something detrimental, whether it be insanity or something else.
EDIT: Someone said it much better here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26573055
Most everything at the top and bottom ends of the distributions are problematic in some way. IQ seems no exception.