Are people with high IQs sociopaths by definition?

[TZK]

If

1) a sociopath is a person who is "characterized by a lack of normal empathy, conscience, and self-control"

 

and

 

2) Normal empathy, conscience and self-control arise from normal belief's and understanding of one's environment (A policeman doesn't feel remorse for giving a speeder a ticket because he feels it is the right thing to do)

 

and

 

3) having an IQ of say even just 140 means that there is only one person as intelligent as you in about every 200 people... or higher iqs meaning even more people are needed to find someone as smart as you

 

and

 

4) IQ is measurable because it creates a difference in reaction to your environment when compared to people with different IQ's

 

Then

 

C) Isn't it the case that all people with high IQ's are sociopaths?

 

Suppose a person with such an IQ naturally gains a much greater understanding than the average person of at least something (that they concentrate on). Perhaps this person has a much greater understanding of morality... or they have a much greater understanding of how to influence other people... or they have a much better understanding of reason and logic itself.

 

It seems such a person has 2 choices, and honest and less honest approach.

 

The less honest approach is the typical sociopath. They see some part of others behavior as silly and nonsensical, but they decide early on that is just a fact of life. In order to achieve their goals that relate to other people, they just tell people whatever they want to hear. They use their intelligence to learn how to manipulate people into doing what they want. When they think noone is looking, they do things that others perhaps consider callous and cruel or at least abnormal in some way. But the truth is this person never agreed with those norms anyways, they just played along so as not to be antagonistic.

 

The more honest approach is when you have someone who behaves in a way that coincides with his better understanding of some subject while attempting to explain his behavior perhaps resulting in debate. This person may be considered antagonistic and subject to all kinds of negative reactions.

[Pyrotex]

If

1) a sociopath is a person who deviates from "normal" behavior,...Then

Isn't it the case that all people with high IQ's are sociopaths? ....

 

The answer is "no".

 

1) You have not defined "normal" behavior. If "normal" means semi-literate and unable to deal with simple math, then HALF of Americans are sociopaths.

 

2) You are confusing "behavior" with "intellegence". You start by appealing to normal behavior, then attempt to equate that with normal intelligence. Bad logic.

 

3) You begin with one definition of "sociopath" as defined by your statement #1, but conclude by undeclared inference that high IQ folks are "sociopaths" by a second definition--namely, the common definition that most folks have for serial killers and compulsive butt sniffers.

 

If you want to ask serious questions around here, you are gonna hafta be a LOT more careful in your logic and your choice of words.

 

Us high-IQ braniacs eat folks like you for supper, with saurkraut and a bottle of good Merlot. :):hihi:;)

 

But, hey! Thanks for trying! :(

[Freddy]

At least try to define sociopath by a generally accepted definition. Do you see anything that remotely hints of a high IQ in the definition below?

 

From Wikipedia:

"Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a psychiatric condition characterized by an individual's common disregard for social rules, norms, and cultural codes, as well as impulsive behavior, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others."

[TZK]

Ok people...

 

This thread is meant to be satirical of sociological reasoning and arguments. I gave no explanation of what is normal, because pursuing a valid definition of normal leads to basically the same end - that normal is defined by philosophy and that people who are smarter are better equipped to discover what is or should be normal.

 

Every other type of "normal is flawed. If you value behavior by how it compares to that of average behavior of any given group, then what about people who used to belong to other groups? Which groups behavior should be considered normal? Perhaps one group is smaller, but their behavior allows them to easily defeat the other group despite being outnumbered? This reasoning could be scaled even down to a single individual holding a weapon

of mass destruction, or even just a tool that allows them to beat a large group in any type of competition. Any great person in history has had different experiences that put them in a different group than others and also motivated their accomplishments.

 

Freddy,

 

the definition you gave does not say sociopath... It's creators may have wished to replace the term or declare it the foundation on which someone may be called a sociopath, but that is not relevant to how the word sociopath is used.

 

The definition is also not at all objective. It is made with a specific belief set in mind. To a person that does not hold that belief set, the definition has no direct meaning but instead has a meaning that can be translated. The translation might sound something like this:

 

Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a condition (as identified by the narrow minded) characterized by an individual's common disagreement with potentially ignorant and arbitrary social rules, norms (whatever that means exactly), and cultural codes (also potentially ignorant). It is also identified by a person feeling the need to act when others, potentially less knowledgeable people, are complacent. These people may also feel justified in acting upon others in a manner similar to how police might act upon criminals, but according to reasons which other people (again potentially less knowledgeable) may not understand.

 

No one was claiming that the definition said "IQ" in it, but that rather it can be deductively reasoned that the definitions of such things like sociopath result in the categorization of people with high IQ's as sociopaths.

 

Also I found this in the wiki page related to actual sociopathy, referencing the ideas of David T. Lykken:

 

"sociopaths, on the other hand, have relatively normal temperaments; their personality disorder being more an effect of negative sociological factors like parental neglect, delinquent peers, poverty, and extremely low or extremely high intelligence."

 

 

The answer is "no".

 

1) You have not defined "normal" behavior. If "normal" means semi-literate and unable to deal with simple math, then HALF of Americans are sociopaths.

 

2) You are confusing "behavior" with "intellegence". You start by appealing to normal behavior, then attempt to equate that with normal intelligence. Bad logic.

 

3) You begin with one definition of "sociopath" as defined by your statement #1, but conclude by undeclared inference that high IQ folks are "sociopaths" by a second definition--namely, the common definition that most folks have for serial killers and compulsive butt sniffers.

 

If you want to ask serious questions around here, you are gonna hafta be a LOT more careful in your logic and your choice of words.

Pyro-

 

lol... ok time for deductive reasoning 101.. When someone makes a deductive argument of the form

 

1 Premise

2 Premise

3 Conclusion

 

With the implied relationship If 1 and 2 then 3 they are not assuming 3, rather they are proving 3. Therefore you wouldn't say 3 is bad logic. That makes no sense, the whole point of the argument was to prove 3 so you wouldn't go straight to the conclusion and say "NUH UH". Rather you would try to attack the argument at some point.

 

The relationship "If 1 and 2 then 3" is usually trivial (at least if you actually read it) and is typically not where deductive arguments have weaknesses. You might attack the premises, although in this form of argument there is at least one premise you typically wouldn't. In this type of argument I am using a silly categorization of a bad person and showing that its definition results in the categorization of all intelligent people as bad people. So of course the first premise is ridiculous that is what I am showing. There is no such thing as normal for the reasons I outlined above. (And this can be shown by pure probability theory as well)

 

Again the whole point of the deductive argument is to PROVE that normal behavior equates with normal intelligence according to the absurd concept of deviant behavior. It is not being assumed, but rather PROVEN. If it were obvious I wouldn't need to make an argument for it. But anyways, the reasoning chain again is:

 

Sociopaths exhibit deviant behavior -> intelligence can only be MEASURED because people of high intelligence behave differently than people of low intelligence -> Therefore people of high intelligence are sociopaths.

 

The beauty of deductive reasoning - simple and yet capable of creating such profound conclusions.

[Zythryn]

Pyro-

 

lol... ok time for deductive reasoning 101.. When someone makes a deductive argument of the form

 

1 Premise

2 Premise

3 Conclusion

 

With the implied relationship If 1 and 2 then 3 they are not assuming 3, rather they are proving 3. Therefore you wouldn't say 3 is bad logic. That makes no sense, the whole point of the argument was to prove 3 so you wouldn't go straight to the conclusion and say "NUH UH". Rather you would try to attack the argument at some point.

 

...

Sociopaths exhibit deviant behavior -> intelligence can only be MEASURED because people of high intelligence behave differently than people of low intelligence -> Therefore people of high intelligence are sociopaths.

 

The beauty of deductive reasoning - simple and yet capable of creating such profound conclusions.

 

TZK your argument has so many wholes in it the term sociopath 'using your definition' is meaningless.

First, you are assuming that someone is a sociopath if they exhibit ANY deviant (deviation from the norm) behavior. By that logic I am a sociopath as I play D&D and am a fan of science fiction authors. I am also a sociopath because I make more than the average person in the society I reside in.

Second, even if not for the glaring error in logic in your first premise, all people that have an above average IQ don't behave differently than people with average IQs. Sure, some do, but others don't.

When either premise in a deductive argument is faulty, the conclusion doesn't logically follow.

[Freddy]

 

Freddy,

 

the definition you gave does not say sociopath... It's creators may have wished to replace the term or declare it the foundation on which someone may be called a sociopath, but that is not relevant to how the word sociopath is used.

 

The definition is also not at all objective. It is made with a specific belief set in mind. To a person that does not hold that belief set, the definition has no direct meaning but instead has a meaning that can be translated. The translation might sound something like this:

 

Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a condition (as identified by the narrow minded) characterized by an individual's common disagreement with potentially ignorant and arbitrary social rules, norms (whatever that means exactly), and cultural codes (also potentially ignorant). It is also identified by a person feeling the need to act when others, potentially less knowledgeable people, are complacent. These people may also feel justified in acting upon others in a manner similar to how police might act upon criminals, but according to reasons which other people (again potentially less knowledgeable) may not understand.

 

No one was claiming that the definition said "IQ" in it, but that rather it can be deductively reasoned that the definitions of such things like sociopath result in the categorization of people with high IQ's as sociopaths.

 

Also I found this in the wiki page related to actual sociopathy, referencing the ideas of David T. Lykken:

 

"sociopaths, on the other hand, have relatively normal temperaments; their personality disorder being more an effect of negative sociological factors like parental neglect, delinquent peers, poverty, and extremely low or extremely high intelligence."

 

Sociopaths exhibit deviant behavior -> intelligence can only be MEASURED because people of high intelligence behave differently than people of low intelligence -> Therefore people of high intelligence are sociopaths.

 

The beauty of deductive reasoning - simple and yet capable of creating such profound conclusions.

 

Your Lykken quote only describes factors that may lead to sociopathic behavior and does not say all people with high IQs are sociopaths. In fact you provide no data to support your assertion on high IQ=sociopath. Instead you debate whether the term sociopath is interchangeable with antisocial personality disorder. Sociopathic behavior is defined by a person's behavior that has been described by experts through their research. Factors and causes of sociopathic behavior have also been described by experts through their research. My challenge to you is cite evidence that high IQs=sociopath.

Here is a site where actual research has been done. Nothing found on IQ.

Sociopathic Relationship Diagram

[paigetheoracle]

If

1) a sociopath is a person who deviates from "normal" behavior,

and

2) having an IQ of say even just 140 means that there is only one person as intelligent as you in about every 200 people... or higher iqs meaning even more people are needed to find someone as smart as you

and

3) IQ is measurable because it creates a difference in reaction to your environment when compared to people with different IQ's

 

Then

 

Isn't it the case that all people with high IQ's are sociopaths?

 

Suppose a person with such an IQ naturally gains a much greater understanding than the average person of at least something (that they concentrate on). Perhaps this person has a much greater understanding of morality... or they have a much greater understanding of how to influence other people... or they have a much better understanding of reason and logic itself.

 

It seems such a person has 2 choices, and honest and less honest approach.

 

The less honest approach is the typical sociopath. They see some part of others behavior as silly and nonsensical, but they decide early on that is just a fact of life. In order to achieve their goals that relate to other people, they just tell people whatever they want to hear. They use their intelligence to learn how to manipulate people into doing what they want. When they think noone is looking, they do things that others perhaps consider callous and cruel or at least abnormal in some way. But the truth is this person never agreed with those norms anyways, they just played along so as not to be antagonistic.

 

The more honest approach is when you have someone who behaves in a way that coincides with his better understanding of some subject while attempting to explain his behavior perhaps resulting in debate. This person may be considered antagonistic and subject to all kinds of negative reactions.

 

Probably I would be considered a sociopath by your definition, having an IQ of 140 and trampling all over other peoples finer feelings, with my creativity. I personally think we can all be considered sociopaths, when we don't conform to the norm but as in The Matrix and The Prisoner (Patrick McGoohans TV epic), those with new or different ideas have always encountered opposition from those currently in power (as Castro said "A revolution is a struggle to the death between the future and the past' or Einstein 'Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - or even Ayn Rand "Great minds can't be ruled')and always will.

 

I personally think the only difference between low and high IQ sociopaths, is what their goal is - self-aggrandisement or changing the bigger picture (Hitler or Charles Manson).

[TZK]

TZK your argument has so many wholes in it the term sociopath 'using your definition' is meaningless.

First, you are assuming that someone is a sociopath if they exhibit ANY deviant (deviation from the norm) behavior. By that logic I am a sociopath as I play D&D and am a fan of science fiction authors. I am also a sociopath because I make more than the average person in the society I reside in.

Second, even if not for the glaring error in logic in your first premise, all people that have an above average IQ don't behave differently than people with average IQs. Sure, some do, but others don't.

When either premise in a deductive argument is faulty, the conclusion doesn't logically follow.

 

Yes as I stated, I am not a fan of the concept of sociopath which I believe is ridiculous. Hence the type of argument where a self contradicting concept results in silly conclusions as I explained in my last post. If you think that my definition of sociopath is unfair, simply state an alternative one and I will make a clear connection between that one and mine.

 

Once you reason that not just any deviating behavior can be used to label someone a sociopath, then you transform the whole discussion back to a philosophical discussion of morality where objectively it cannot be easily seen that one person is right and another is wrong. Sociology attempts to sidestep this by attaching negative connotations to behavior that is different from that of a group rather than trying to objectively determine what is right and wrong.

 

But then it relies on a person's intuition to differentiate between deviant behavior that is bad and deviant behavior that is not bad. That brings us back to exactly where we started... This solves nothing, the only result is empowered ignorance. Narrow minded people who might otherwise be persuaded to be more open minded by showing them the contradictions that occur when everyone is always sure they are right, might now be a bit more difficult to persuade as they believe their behavior is reinforced by a branch of science... even a completely irrelevant one.

 

Sociology is anti-philosophy, anti-knowledge. In the same fashion that the idea of knowledge being justified true belief tries to defeat the lessons of skepticism, it's only purpose is to attempt to reverse any objection to bandwagon fallacy and any resulting superior approaches to reason.

 

In order for a person's high intelligence to be measurable (much less, significant) there has to be measurable differences in behavior even if that consists of nothing more than them giving correct answers on iq tests. However it is quite silly to imagine that the only difference in behavior between a genius and a handicapped person is that they give different answers on iq tests.

 

It is equally silly to assume that people with high iqs do not ever act differently with regards to things that might irritate other people. They might have different ideas regarding politics because of something they understand better. This might cause a heated debate between them and someone else. In heated debates each party often raises their voices because they feel justified, even though this brand of behavior might be seen as disregarding someone else's feelings. Thus it is very likely that a person with a high iq meets the requirements of even the most objective definition of sociopath.

 

However it can be shown that any definition of sociopath can be reduced to mine using similar reasoning. You cannot take any action without affecting other people both negatively and positively. Therefore all different behavior becomes suspect.

 

You play D&D and watch sci-fi. Perhaps by doing so you made someone else feel rejected because you did not hang out with them instead. But they also feel empowered because most people do not do those things, and their subconscious primitively reasons that deviance = weakness. Thus they feel they can get away with calling you a dork to alleviate their feelings of rejection... it isn't like the girl they like is going to defend your behavior because your one of a few that likes that stuff.

 

In fact you provide no data to support your assertion on high IQ=sociopath.

... Except irrefutable proof through pure deductive reasoning... Think of deductive reasoning as the math of philosophers.

 

True depending on what you know I have to add more steps to bridge the gap. It would be good though if you learned the format though so instead of paragraphs you could just point out which premise you disagree with and why, and then I could prove that premise in the same manner using what you do agree with.

 

Regarding the two terms, it might be relevant to the issue of whether or not they are the exact same thing that the site YOU pointed out has two completely distinct pages regarding sociopathy and antisocial personality disorder which have no connection other than a "related articles" link.

[Buffy]

... Except irrefutable proof through pure deductive reasoning... Think of deductive reasoning as the math of philosophers.

Its just circular reasoning: Sociopaths think differently therefore anyone who thinks differently is a sociopath.

 

This highly transparent exercise in justifying sociopathic behavior is a pointless waste of time. Please don't waste ours.

 

God bless whoever invented sunglasses, :)

Buffy

[Freddy]

Sociology is anti-philosophy, anti-knowledge.

No, sociology is an accepted science.

 

However it can be shown that any definition of sociopath can be reduced to mine using similar reasoning.

Oh really, then show us someone who agrees with your high IQ=sociopath definition.

 

 

 

... Except irrefutable proof through pure deductive reasoning... Think of deductive reasoning as the math of philosophers.

Deductive reasoning is not science in and of itself, it is only part of the scientific method and cannot stand alone.

 

 

 

Regarding the two terms, it might be relevant to the issue of whether or not they are the exact same thing that the site YOU pointed out has two completely distinct pages regarding sociopathy and antisocial personality disorder which have no connection other than a "related articles" link.

Show evidence that they are not interchangeable terms then.

Please cite evidence/research that high IQs=sociopath.

[TheBigDog]

Sociopaths are defined by their behavior, not by their thinking. Your base definition is wrong.

 

Your argument of honesty versus dishonesty is also flawed. It implies that in any situation there are only two possible routes - an honest and "sociopathic" route visible only to the high IQ person, and a dishonest and socially acceptable path taken the high IQ person who want to fit in. All people, not just the high IQ people, deal with the fact that in almost every situation we face in life we have hundreds or thousands of possible ways to act. Many of them are layered in subtlety and nuance and it is social skills that help us to determine our course of action in any situation. Specific (typically pleasant) social interaction is part of the solution sought by the human mind, it is not divorced from it out of a want for purity of action. Doing so ignores the individual's obligations as a member of society, and is a root cause of sociopathic behavior.

 

Teaching one's self or forcing one's self to be a social creature doesn't need to be dishonest any more than learning to wipe your own *** is dishonest.

 

Bill

[Pyrotex]

Sociopaths are defined by their behavior, not by their thinking. Your base definition is wrong....

Specific (typically pleasant) social interaction is part of the solution sought by the human mind, it is not divorced from it out of a want for purity of action...

Teaching one's self or forcing one's self to be a social creature doesn't need to be dishonest any more than learning to wipe your own *** is dishonest.

I met a sociopath once. He was "dating" a girl who was my neighbor at the time, and she took to bringing him over to my apartment when he showed up so she wouldn't have to deal with him alone. I, for my part, always insisted on leaving the door and windows open when he showed up.

 

He often spoke of "purity of action", and being "true to himself" at whatever cost to others. He spoke of being responsible only for his own interests (never his own feelings, which he never spoke of at all). He dismissed others as "weak" if they couldn't take care of themselves, especially in his prresence.

 

It became a frightening ordeal when he showed up at my doorstep, with or without his "girlfriend" -- she was afraid to tell him to get lost. We finally solved this by having four guys at my apartment on one occassion, two of them really BIG. It was then that I confronted him with the fact that his "girlfriend" wasn't. And that his presence in our entire complex was unwanted.

 

He said a few things about our logic and intelligence, got up and left. He wasn't at all pissed or bothered. If he showed any emotion at all, it was amused contempt.

 

I remember him as being very handsome, and of moderate intelligence. Well read, but not outrageously so. He had a flair for logic but -- interesting -- could not discern valid logic from fallacy.

[TZK]

Its just circular reasoning: Sociopaths think differently therefore anyone who thinks differently is a sociopath.

 

This highly transparent exercise in justifying sociopathic behavior is a pointless waste of time. Please don't waste ours.

 

God bless whoever invented sunglasses, :)

Buffy

 

what on earth are you talking about?

 

First that isn't circular reasoning. That is just bad logic if that were an attribute of sociopaths. All A are B does not mean All B are A. Not that it has anything to do with anything I said.

 

Second the idea that anyone that thinks differently is a sociopath is a premise in the argument, something that is assumed. Many people identify sociology and terms like sociopath with the concept of "deviant behavior" meaning behavior that differs from others. Among these people I wouldn't need to argue for Premise 1.

 

Other people are less clear on it and think of it as criminal deviance rather than just deviance. In a later post, in a non circular fashion, I pointed out that you cannot hold deviance as relevant but then say only when it results in the disregards of feelings of others because all deviant behavior affects other people. If you argue for a certain political viewpoint, you may cause a climate that someone else dislikes. If you plant a certain tree, you may breed a certain type of bug or bacteria that would kill other crops of a certain kind nearby. If you like to water ski, you may be making the water too volatile for people who want to just fish nearby. If you want to reduce the risk of fatal accidents on the road by .0001 percent by reducing the speed limit, you might be reducing other people's travel efficiency who deem the risk acceptable etc etc..

 

You cannot hold deviance as a significant attribute but then only pay attention to deviant behavior that affects others negatively. All behavior affects other people. Thus such reasoning simply reduces to either

 

A) all significantly deviant behavior is bad -or-

:xx: Deviance is not significant rather we must determine what behavior is fair or not for moral reasons.

[TZK]

Please cite evidence/research that high IQs=sociopath.

 

Uh no? Undeniable proof > evidence, and research is unnecessary in that case?

 

No, sociology is an accepted science.

 

The majority of the "science" of sociology is rendered useless by the simple recognition of "bandwagon fallacy", and the part that isn't is simply another name for moral philosophy. BTW your reference to it being accepted is bandwagon/appeal to authority fallacy. Who accepted it? Sure as heck not me, I guess just people that didn't know better.

 

Oh really, then show us someone who agrees with your high IQ=sociopath definition.

 

Bandwagon fallacy. Also a funny request given that this is the internet and I can't show you anybody? Also did you read the quote I posted from the wiki site you brought up?

 

Deductive reasoning is not science in and of itself, it is only part of the scientific method and cannot stand alone.

 

Thats about as bass ackwards as you can get it. Not only is it the foundation of the scientific method (make that all human knowledge for that matter), as well as the foundation of mathematics, without which science would be very useless. Though, it is pointless to talk of deductive reasoning as being the foundation for these things because these things ARE deductive reasoning...

 

2+2=4 is a deductive reasoning argument. 2 and 4 are defined using perceptions (usually visually), and 2 2's is exactly the definition of 4 visually. They are one and the same, not just equivalent. A=A. Without deductive reasoning humans would be useless, and if it wasn't infallible when used correctly math would be useless. Of course it is also a subset of inductive reasoning which you seem to be fond of (How often does A=A? always, and we learn that at an early age thus an inductive faculty becomes a deductive faculty), but don't expect it to supersede it any time soon because the day when A stops equaling A is the day all human reasoning becomes useless.

 

Show evidence that they are not interchangeable terms then.

 

Good god man, do you even have the slightest clue what evidence means? You point to a site as if it has valuable information, and that very site says they are two different things, and then you ask me for evidence that they are different? AHAHAHAHHAHHA

[Freddy]

Uh no? Undeniable proof > evidence, and research is unnecessary in that case?

Can you point to anyone who is a scientist who will support your assertion that "evidence, and research is unnecessary"?

 

 

The majority of the "science" of sociology is rendered useless by the simple recognition of "bandwagon fallacy", and the part that isn't is simply another name for moral philosophy. BTW your reference to it being accepted is bandwagon/appeal to authority fallacy. Who accepted it? Sure as heck not me, I guess just people that didn't know better.

The overwhelming majority of scientists accept sociology as a science discipline.

 

 

Bandwagon fallacy. Also a funny request given that this is the internet and I can't show you anybody? Also did you read the quote I posted from the wiki site you brought up?

 

 

 

Thats about as bass ackwards as you can get it. Not only is it the foundation of the scientific method (make that all human knowledge for that matter), as well as the foundation of mathematics, without which science would be very useless. Though, it is pointless to talk of deductive reasoning as being the foundation for these things because these things ARE deductive reasoning...

Like I said "part of the scientific method".

 

 

Good god man, do you even have the slightest clue what evidence means? You point to a site as if it has valuable information, and that very site says they are two different things, and then you ask me for evidence that they are different? AHAHAHAHHAHHA

No, try reading the first sentence from the very site below.

Sociopathy Overview

"Sociopath or technically known as Antisocial personality disorder (APD or ASPD), or dissocial personality disorder, is a psychiatric diagnosis that interprets antisocial and impulsive behaviours as symptoms of a personality disorder."

 

When are you going to write a paper on High IQs=Sociopath and then submit it for peer review, which is just something most scientists routinely do for establishing credibility?

[TZK]

Sociopaths are defined by their behavior, not by their thinking. Your base definition is wrong.

 

Your argument of honesty versus dishonesty is also flawed. It implies that in any situation there are only two possible routes - an honest and "sociopathic" route visible only to the high IQ person, and a dishonest and socially acceptable path taken the high IQ person who want to fit in. All people, not just the high IQ people, deal with the fact that in almost every situation we face in life we have hundreds or thousands of possible ways to act. Many of them are layered in subtlety and nuance and it is social skills that help us to determine our course of action in any situation. Specific (typically pleasant) social interaction is part of the solution sought by the human mind, it is not divorced from it out of a want for purity of action. Doing so ignores the individual's obligations as a member of society, and is a root cause of sociopathic behavior.

 

Teaching one's self or forcing one's self to be a social creature doesn't need to be dishonest any more than learning to wipe your own *** is dishonest.

 

Bill

 

In order for their thinking to be measurable and in any way significant, it must affect their behavior.

 

Ever heard of the term "disagreeable"? It is a commonly used term, for some people similar to calling someone unpleasant. It implies that to disagree with others is to be unpleasant (whether people would disagree with you or vice versa). It is a very ignorant, but very common way of thinking, and the common language version of sociology.

 

Let us say you take two Italians of different intelligences and place them as babies in new york city. Eventually they grow up and are exposed to mob behavior as people they are related to, neighbors or friends are in the mafia. They are both encouraged to participate.

 

The one of lower intelligence protests because his previous support network (mom, sister, some old friends) believed that criminal behavior was wrong. However the mafia appears to be in control around where he lives. He tries to reconcile the two ideologies by presenting arguments to the mafia man in an attempt to resist. However, the mafia member is a smooth talker (not good at logical reasoning mind you, but a smooth talker) and confuses the low intelligence young man. He may have seen a flicker of a counterargument to one of the things the smooth talker said, but lost it and gives in to the social pressure and eventually becomes a full fledged mafia member.

 

The high intelligence young man however comes to understand the nature of bandwagon fallacy and becomes less vulnerable to social pressure. Furthermore the smooth talker fails to confuse him and the high iq young man has superior arguments against the mafia's behavior than even his old support network had (whether he presents them or not). Maybe he even succeeds in causing the mafia members to doubt their behavior. So he leaves the neighborhood or joins the priesthood or whatever else.

 

The point here should be clear. Situations like this, the fact that growing up in the ghetto makes people more likely to be criminals, the percentage of germans who went along with nazi Germany's machinations etc make it perfectly clear that most people value "Going with the flow" TOO MUCH.

 

The basic idea here, of a group of people holding guns saying join us or die is meant to be symbolic of all human behavior to some degree. When you disagree with people, they try to force you to agree and conform to their behavior. Some of that force is confusion and smooth talking (poor arguments that sound good), which takes intelligence to overcome.

 

...

 

Freddy, you and everything you believe can be pretty much summed up with one word.... Bandwagon fallacy. Not that the majority of people even agree with you, you have simply misunderstood the vast majority of people's understanding of things. Of course it's hard to explain that to you without the majority of people speaking simultaneously since you don't understand the value of an idea being ACTUALLY CORRECT rather than just a bunch of people seeming (seeming to someone who doesn't understand that is) to think it is correct... Please look it up and come back later.

[Freddy]

Freddy, you and everything you believe can be pretty much summed up with one word.... Bandwagon fallacy. Not that the majority of people even agree with you, you have simply misunderstood the vast majority of people's understanding of things. Of course it's hard to explain that to you without the majority of people speaking simultaneously since you don't understand the value of an idea being ACTUALLY CORRECT rather than just a bunch of people seeming (seeming to someone who doesn't understand that is) to think it is correct... Please look it up and come back later.

 

Again, show evidence that supports your assertion that High IQs=Sociopath. Show just one study that supports it. That is all I ask. Oh, I forgot you have deductive reasoning, therefore research and evidence is unnecessary.