/sci/ - Science & Math

I have social anxiety

Because it's true?

You people need to learn that stereotypes always have a reason for their existance.

because stupid people hate intelligent people

CUS WE'RE ALL INTJ'S LAWL

>>2392778
oh look, anecdotal evidence, I guess we can close the case on that one!

Because intelligent people spend most of their time thinking and/or doing other intellectual activities, in most of the cases, which isolates them from the society and prevents them from learning proper social skills.

If all people were intelligent they would find science more fun than sports and partying, most of the time, because it is when it's understood properly.

INTJ - introversion, intuition, thinking, judgment personality
It isn't rare for INTJs to be very bad at socializing, and as the result, develop social phobia, due to the rejection from the lack of social skills

inteligente people have to find inteligent people to socialize

and until they find, they're already traumatized

>>2392793
idolizing House doesn't make "smart" people INTJ's. it doesn't make INTJ ideal either. 99% of the "INTJ"s that you'll meet are just morons (most likely kids) that want to be like Hugh Laurie (minus the funny british accent i assume)

Because intelligent people that suck at socializing think that anybody who doesn't suck at socializing can't be intelligent and anything that doesn't fall in their cliché is not real intelligence.

Why is it extremely often stereotyped that people of average intelligence suck as socializing with downs syndrome patients?

tldr; why dont normalfags FUCKING LOVE FIRETRUCKS

Its not that they are bad at socializing with everyone, they are abd at socialising with stupid people. Most of everyday conversations involve talking about shit that is of no interest and care to anyone smart, I can hold a conversation if the topic is something that requires thought like philosophy or politics(though i know almost nothing of them), however as soon as the talk degenerates into some random chitchat like drinking and music and tv I just can't function because I'd rather chop my balls off.

>>2392824
Same here, the so called 'normal' people just switch the conversation's subject to something about women/sex/TV/drugs/drinking/celebrities, and the whole mainstream society is on their size - so if you complain about it you get instantly kicked out.

Because most socializing revolves around doing stupid shit without thinking about consequences. An intelligent person will spend too much time thinking, and too little time acting like a retard, so people don't like to hang out with them.

Alright /sci/, i'm gonna take a guess on this ..

Maybe, I said MAYBE it's because most of the intelligent people are more shy and they hate to be with other people to socialize. That's how I see it.

because being social is a skill.

It's like playing baseball, if you don't practice at all and try to play in a major league game you are gonna fail hard.

The popular people just practice a lot. They go to parties they make sure they listen to the accepted music, wear the accepted clothes, make sure they are kept up to date on every trivial happening "omfgbbq jen just got bak w/ johnny!", and make it a point of always interacting with people.

Conversely, intelligent people constantly practice studying and reading. They find skimming through wikipedia articles much more enjoyable then shopping at hollister.

Back to the analogy most of the time intelligently people are amateurs trying to play in the major leagues of social interaction.

That's the most I can say...

>>2392854

>edit:

intelligent* people

Sliding scale of autism. Intelligent people more autistic, ergo decreased ability to socialise due to impaired theory of mind.

Restecp (bonus points if you can make this connection).

I just fucking hate socializing.

Protip: Socializing and having a proper discussion about something meaningful aren't the same thing.

>>2392862
no - it's because intelligent people don't find what normal people talk about interesting

>>2392854
>implying intelligent people don't do this as well.

It's because flatulatory diarrhea of meaningless, useless language depresses me to the point of despair.

If your mind is more focused on an area like math, less of it is devoted to social skills.

Fuck socializing. Why socialize when you could NOT socialize. All you have to do is kill your enemies, steal their chickens or goats or bags of rice or whatever, and hear the lamentations of their women.

>>2392776
>Why is it extremely often stereotyped that intelligent people suck as socializing?
>extremely often stereotyped that intelligent people suck as socializing?
>intelligent people suck as socializing?
>suck as socializing?
>as
*at :3

Because we are more interested in information and learning than hanging out with people. Sure, it's fun to have a good friend or two to play Xbox or whatever, but I don't like parties and stuff like that, because even if I know the people there, we probably don't share any interests.

>>2392878

yes it's possible and therefore statistically likely that there is someone in existence who is both intelligent and social, but such a person would not be intelligent, social, and incredibly knowledgeable.

Go to a top-5 university, look at the people attending advanced mathematics/physics lectures. Or alternatvely look at the research fellows and academics of physics and maths departments.


It should be evident why the stereotype exists.

Lol there is so much aspergers in this thread.

Truly intelligent people are able to utilize cognitive thinking skills and communication skills effectively. Unfortunately, those surrounding you may not possess the same interests as you if you are truly refined. For example, you may be able to converse with other individuals about books you may have read, but you may be lost for words when you realize that those around you have only read 4 books in the last 5 years; the selection being Snooki's new book and the Twilight series.

That type of isolation is depressing, but acceptable: you are isolated through no fault of your own.

On the other hand, you may be a social retard if you intentionally isolate yourself from individuals without trying to converse in subjects you are knowledgeable in. Examples of such social ineptness includes:

>Rejecting invitations to social events
>intentional isolation because THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND ME HURRRR
>Playing World of Warcraft for 90% of your day repeatedly
>Poor communication skills
>Being an asshole around others
>etc

True intelligence is a combination of critical thinking skills, both general and scientific knowledge, and communication skills.

You are not retarded if you are slightly deficient in any of these. One needs to be completely deficient in one of those mentioned fields in order to be.....

>forever retarded

Because today society's standard of being "social" is retarded. How are bunch of drunk morons dancing like retards yelling at loud meaningless music more "social" than a group of gentlemen sit and having a conversation about the philosophy of life. Just an example. Also your number of friends, acquaintance does not determine how social you are as person

>>2392942
>>2392942

Hey you, read the post above yours.

Sitting with others and talking about life does not make you socially retarded. You just have different priorities and

>>2392949

He didn't say that, he said a bunch of drunk morons dancing like retards yelling at loud meaningless music is socially retarded.

>>2392949
Ofcourse not thats my point

Just because our culture has gotten too stupid for someone with a functioning brain to be a part of doesnt make him "social retarded" as the stereotype suggest.

If you know how to relate to people and act with a civilized manner you're not "social retarded" nor anti social

Because they put all their stats into int, and nothing into chr. Why would they anyway? Chr is dumpstat.

>>2392953

incorrect, it's the social norm. Perhaps intellectually retarded, but since the majority of society is, I suppose by definition, intellectually retarded, anyone who does otherwise is socially retarded.

>>2392824
I countn't agree anymore with this. Anyone who is trying to say that INTJs really are bad at socializing has never had an interesting conversation with one.
We seriously just choose not to socialize with the idiots that aren't worth our time.

>>2392940
Not communicating with people because of different interests makes you not learn proper socializing skills. If you don't know how to use proper social skills, you're socially retarded.

Your post was retarded and self-contradicting.

>>2392959
you can always get the Social skill to level 5

because if stupid people are not social they are pretty much dog shit tier .. people are afraid of smart, social people..

>>2392986

If you pay attention to the end of the my post, you will realize that what you just said was mentioned in my post.

In addition, I do agree with you: refusing to communicate with others because of different interests does make you a social retard... however I mentioned that under....

>Poor communication skills

I see where I have made an error, i say

>On the other hand, you may be a social retard if you intentionally isolate yourself from individuals without trying to converse in subjects you are knowledgeable in. Examples of such social ineptness includes:

what I should have said was...

>On the other hand, you may be a social retard if you intentionally isolate yourself from individuals without trying to converse. Examples of such social ineptness includes:

Wannabe intelligent person(usually with self-insecurities) ''Hurr Hurr i'm to intelligent to socialize or have fun with ignorant people"
Intelligent person "Hey, socializing is fun"

>>2393029
If they were intelligent, they wouldn't be wasting their time socializing.

there was recently a study for this,
they sayd it had to be with that intelligent people could afford baby sitters and people to fix their shit.
why poor people had to get help from friends.
and because they had to ask friends for help they had to socialize.

Pretty sure the progression goes something like this. High school is easy as balls, there are lots of people who do well. Many of them aren't intelligent, they're just nerdy, this is where the lack of social skills people come in. They're perceived as "intelligent" and socially retarded, but really there never was intelligence.

Fast forward to grad school, most everyone I know is pretty damn smart, and wait what's this? Ridiculously well rounded, they're all socially capable. We've finally separated the intelligent and the nerdy.

>>2393038
Because they would rather...?

>>2393052

lurk 4chan

>>2393022
>>refusing to communicate with others because of different interests does make you a social retard
no it does not.. some people are soooo dumb that you can know within a few seconds that some of the thoughts u pondered ur entire child hood are just begining to manifest in said moron.. and said moron needs to think really hard and fight for his incorrect counter argument.. "just keep thinking u are correct bro".. im not very social because i dont like correcting people all the time, since i dont want to appear condescending.. yes, alot of people are complete idiots.. especially in high school and college.. grad school is alot better.. but then teyre social misfits..

>>2393044
>Ridiculously well rounded, they're all socially capable.

This isn't necessarily true for a mathematics department.

>>2393113
Yeah I'm not speaking in absolutes either, many of the foreign grad students are pretty awkward.

>>2392776

Aspergers or autism. Common symptoms are being more or less better than average on one or few particular subjects, while sucking at others.

Common disability seems to be the inability to socialize effectively.

Because theyre ugly(really).
All the intelligent AND pŕetty people Ive found were social.The rest wasnt.

>>2393269
I've noticed this too, that intelligent people aren't really handsome/beautiful, they are most of the time below avg. / ugly. Ugly people need something else to make their living than their looks, might explain this phenomenon.

>>2392776

because they're not usually that interested in boring small talk. 'social people' would say "who cares?" about the things that 'intelligent people' would want to talk about, but the reverse is also rtrue.

>>2393299
One of our lecturers looks like an adonis, so that's not always true. I think it's unforgivable how academics and "intellectuals" don't take pride in their appearance though. I don't give a shit about whether someone socialises or not, but if they're a blot on the landscape it's going to bother me.

>>2393269
>>2393299

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200903/beautiful-people-are-more-i
ntelligent-i

>>2393269
>nope.jpeg

Though I think social people have more pressure to look good.

http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
Seems plausible...

>>2393374
>>2392854

samefag

>>2392776

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/all-stereotypes-are-true-ex
cept-i-what-are-stereotypes

bell curve

if you're on either end, it's hard to find people of matching intelligence to have an enjoyable conversation with

>>2393361
>>2393349
i - You should notice the pretty people were included in my
ii - "Now, given that it was the children’s teacher who was asked to assess their physical attractiveness"
plus...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics
-you can "prove" anything you want with statistics
-In psychology, no one can prove youre completely wrong about anything
statistics+psychology=?
Psychology studies arent serious.
btw I knew the link....

>>2393519
Either you do not desire the rewards of successful social interaction enough to learn to like conversing with less intelligent people, or you are in fact not as smart as you think you are if this is your excuse, because successfull social interaction is a (at the highest levels) massively cognitively demanding activity.

Because everyone is a fucking idiot.

>>2393529
Not true, you're thinking along the lines of old fashioned pseudo-psychology as preformed by the likes of Freud and Jung. Modern Psychology is much, much more objective, although you're right in saying that statistics can prove/disprove anything, if you slant it. But that's the same in every field, a prime example being the case of Mr Wakefield, the ex-Doctor that bullshitted the study about autism and vaccines, and another prime example being all the tobaco-funded studies preformed around the 1950's.

If someone is unable to socialize properly, would that not be a sing of unintelligence?

>>2393567
Intelligence is very subjective. Don't heap it into one big bundle.

I think certain individuals are intelligent because of their alternative brain structure (Einstein, anyone?).

Some people must have smaller parts that are used in social interactions.

People are good at what they do. And they do what they like.

Intelligent people are drawn to academia because early on they tend to get positive feedback from parents and teachers, due to how good they are at intellectual pursuits. So they like it more, so they do it more.

Some people get more positive feedback from peers, and socialising. So they do this more. So they get good at it.


There are only so many hours in a day. If you spend half the time studying, you'll get good at your studies. If you spend half the time hanging out, you'll get good at hanging out. If you spend half the time hitting on chicks, you'll get good at hitting on chicks.

Aspergers here. Being born without social instincts means living 2/3 of a normal life; I know from experience. I never knew why I never had friends, because nobody ever explained "friend-making theory" to me.

I suspect, from my own experiences and my own family (dad has some traits but not enough for clinical diagnosis like me) that intellectuals have a family culture that praises intellectual pursuits and disdains socializing, which reinforced any latent Autistic traits such as faceblindness and eye contact avoidance.

>>2393560
Thats NOT the same in every field.
Simpler fields, like physics, biology etc, you can usually isolate what you want to measure and somehow predict how other factors may interfere with the data.
With most thing that involve subjective thoughts thats impossible.And it is impossible to repeat a experiment in psychology.

For "intelligent" people you're overthinking this a whole lot.

It's essentially a disparity between social and intellectual maturity. Logical/analytical skills and emotional intelligence rarely develop at equal rates in the same person. I doubt it has much, if anything, to do with social mores/norms as some have suggested in this thread.

I should add that "extroverted" social skill--that is, the ability to gel quickly with strangers--is just one facet of social interaction. Many intelligent introverts are incredibly gregarious and quick-witted around people they know.

>>2393605
>And it is impossible to repeat a experiment in psychology.

[Citation needed]

>>2393605
Obvious ignorantfag is obvious.

>>2393606
>Many intelligent introverts are incredibly gregarious and quick-witted around people they know.

Such as myself. I am at peak social performance in groups of 3 to 11, at least half of which I know well. Any more strangers, or people in total, than that and I find it difficult to interject with my comments or remarks, to keep up with the various threads of the conversation happening around me, to engage with people I don't know well, and so on.

>>2393605

>it is impossible to repeat a experiment in psychology.

Not if it's a valid experiment. The Milgram experiment has been repeated many times with similar results. It's one of the reasons that I think psychology can actually be scientific. Even if it often isn't.

>>2393620
>>2393620
Are you me ? \o/

Myers Briggs personality types, anecdotal 'evidence', subjective stereotyping...What's next, homeopathy?

You dissapoint me, /sci/

>>2393616
>>2393615
[Common sense needed]
Even being self-evident(by this point I am SURE both of you are not from exact sciences, you seem not to have a clue of what rigour means), the precise statement Ive actually heard in a lecture about interdisciplinarity when the lecturer(professor Hani Camille), started arguing with a group in the audience with a party of undergrad psychologists who were part of a HR consulting group.He was the one who said that and asked for confirmation by them, and he had.
There was veiled aggressiveness between them.
I was latter told that he was particularly angry because he tried to "test" some HR experts when recruiting workers for a industrial research project and he define the desirable profile as a friend of him s profile, which was one of the candidates.His friend failed the selection.

>>2393660

Seriously. The MBTI is considered unscientific even by mainstream psychology, which isn't exactly known for its rigor.

>>2393644
You will never be able to isolate anything in psychology.

But I still believe it will be a good science..but the subject is to complicated and will take a long time, I think.

>>2393660

Just because Jung was unconventional does not NECESSARILY means his findings can't be useful

I suggest taking a mbti test. Hell, take it a few times to be sure. If you don't get chills reading your type profile I'll eat my fucking shoe.

>>2393672
>>2393672
>If you don't get chills reading your type profile I'll eat my fucking shoe.

The test just repeats what you answered in another way. It's nothing to be amazed of imo.

>>2392779
>you people

1) generalise opposing group
2) cease to empathise with group
3) lolocaust

>>2393671

Well, no, of course not. You can't completely isolate psychological traits without lobotomizing test subjects, which would fuck with the results anyway.

The issue is that if you can't repeat an experiment, you can't claim its results valid. While there are any number of reasons an experiment might go wrong when you can't completely isolate variables, if conclusions can be drawn from the results, they should occur more often than not on repetition of the experiment. If the same results don't occur very often then they're in error. If the occur as much as they don't, then there's probably a more fundamental explanation for the behaviour which should be explored and would account for the variation.

>>2393299
>>2393269
Most of the 'socially retarded and intelligent' people I met were average looking and sometimes handsome. Mostly average looking though.

Some people do isolate themselves due to ugliness and start learning because of them being ugly - but this phenomenon is far more rare than intelligent people isolating themselves because they don't find what normal people talk about interesting.

>>2393679
>It's nothing to be amazed of imo.

When did I say you should be "amazed"? I said it was USEFUL. It won't cure cancer and it's not a pathological diagnostic. It's just a very effective way to categorize people and understand differences in how we think (refer to original thread topic).

>>2392789

Sports are still fun for the intelligent.

Intelligent people play games like Soccer.

>>2393694
Well, you live in a weird place then.

Intelligent people socialize on a deeper, more demanding level. If you read one book, you've had thousands of words and ideas shaped by someone in front of you.

Now you try and talk to someone who's idea of deep conversation is "hey, sup? Nothing bro. Yo, I'm at area 514. Seen the game last night?" It's a fake convention that we share something more than a cursory, brief relation in space and time. Cavemen saying they're not alone in the night. Supposing you share space for an extended period you become acquaintances. Sharing goals is where cooperation begins (like football) and friendship is when similar beliefs, unprovable ideas are shared.

What's the deepest level of checking beliefs? You read the books and check the ideas. You share your favorite problems and equations: do they match? What'd you get? Huh, you sure? Oh yeah, you're right, because we said X = Y at the start.

Of course, nothing wrong with starting that off with a "Greeting fellows Natural Philosophers/Sup Brotoss?/Do you herp so hard you derp?"

If you practice one more than the other, that's fine, but you need to learn both or you can't do either.

>>2393742
It might be true for girls, but not for guys. Being attractive, (excluding personal hygiene, clothes and haircut) for a guy isn't really important and is very subjective.

Your observation applied for girls in my area, by the way.

>>2393710

>Intelligent people play games like Soccer

You've clearly never seen an interview with an English footballer.

>ITT petty introverts convince themselves that their poor social life is because everyone around them is a moron.

Great job, guys. Maybe if you weren't and arrogant ass people would be more inclined to talk to you.

>>2393606
see
>>2393760

..but yeah, lotta whiny factors in this thread. It seems the refugees from /r9k/ are shitting up every board.

>>2393780
**whiny faggots

FUCKING IPHONE AUTOCORRECT

Of the people I know of who can actually critically think, rather than just memorizing equations and facts, the vast majority consists of socially proficient people. But I think the stereotypes come from the famous scientists who would voluntarily cut themselves off from society to conduct research while ignoring that a great many scientists kept in constant correspondence to other people.

>>2393780
>>2393786
Oh lol I'm cracking up

>>2393786
>guy with iphone calling people fags.

Nice socializing there HIPSTER.

>>2393843

Hipsters? In MY /sci/?

inb4 shitstorm

>>2396482

its simple.

Intelligent people spend their time reading,studying, and watching documentaries.

They don't have time to be socializing with other Humans.

On the other hand the Untermensch are too idiotic to be watching Nova so they instead engage in their circle-jerk called "hanging out".

In reality, Intelligent people run the world. If we are to survive as a species, some of us have got to sacrifice the opportunity to embrace of a woman.

More stupid people than intelligent people. Stupid people form groups and call each other stupid all day. They hate intelligent people. They spend a lot of time socializing and view it as absolutely dominant. There are so many people who believe that socialization is boss, and you should spend all your time and resources into becoming a better socializer.

>>2393044
>>2392940

Both of these are so true.

>>2392787
>anecdotal evidence
>closed case
I don't think you know what Anecdotal Evidence means.

>>2392776
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ATTACKING ME?!

FUCK YOU@@@#

>>2396892

THIS. somebody please explain this bullshit

>>2398779
>>2396892
see
>>2396695

>>2392986

The man is right, you are just realizing that you've got work to do.


[x] Butt devastated