'Schopenhauer says:
For the most part we have only a choice between solitude and vulgarity. The
most social men are the least intellectual. "He
is very unsocial," is almost equivalent
to saying, "He is a man of great
qualities".' For some reason this quote really stood out to me. I know this idea has been echoed by other famous proclaimed "geniuses". Many intellectuals often have come off as rather unsocial, but I wonder if that would be the exception or the rule. Schopenhauer seems to suggest that the rule would be that social men are generally unintelligent, and unsocial men are generally intellectual. However, I fail to see the correlation between those two things. I don't really understand how one comes to the conclusion that how social or unsocial someone is can usually determine their intelligence levels. If someone is really social he or she may influenced by many ideas, but that could easily be a good or bad thing. He or she may not be encouraged to think on their own, or they may use others ideas to help build off of their own and make new discoveries. There is no reason to automatically assume that just because someone is social that they are not intellectual. Likewise, a more unsocial person may be able to think more clearly and eloquently without worrying about popular opinions, or they may get stuck in the same way of thinking with no one to bounce their ideas off of. They too could be just as likely to be intelligent as unintelligent. I just don't think that one's social activities or lack thereof determine in any way someones intelligence.
I agree that the degree of sociability one exhibits is not by any means an accurate indication of one's intelligence. However, the stereotype of the antisocial genius does have some basis in reality. If this is not (as I believe it is not) due to the connection of sociability and intellect or lack thereof, then what does cause it?
ReplyDeleteI think that the most likely cause is the relative rarity of genius, at least genius on the scale of Melville's and Schopenhauer's. On a whole, intelligence distribution seems to follow a bell-curve shape; as such, those at the far right end of the curve are few and far between. It is the far-between-ness, I think, that is most relevant here; people with the intellectual abilities of Melville or Schopenhauer might go their entire lives without meeting anyone else of comparable intelligence or educational level. Such people might feel surrounded by individuals who are simply incapable of or unwilling to comprehend the thoughts that they themselves entertain on a daily basis. As a result, they might feel isolated even when in company, and so choose to avoid socialisation as a rule, because it fails to bring them any sort of happiness and only annoys them. This might also help explain why so many people of high intellect tend to suffer from depression; out of all the people acknowledged today as geniuses, a fairly large percentage were very unhappy throughout much of their lives. This could be because humans are naturally social beings, and so in general when a human is (through their own actions or through circumstances beyond their control) deprived of socialisation, they tend to become unhappy.
P.S. I also posted this on my blog if you'd rather read it there.