Scientists Say Smart People Are Better Off With Fewer Friends

HughPickens.com writes: Christopher Ingraham writes in the Washington Post that a new study finds that when smart people spend more time with their friends, it makes them less happy. "The findings in here suggest (and it is no surprise) that those with more intelligence and the capacity to use it ... are less likely to spend so much time socializing because they are focused on some other longer term objective," says Carol Graham, a Brookings Institution researcher who studies the economics of happiness. According to Graham you should think of the really smart people you know. They may include a doctor trying to cure cancer or a writer working on the great American novel or a human rights lawyer working to protect the most vulnerable people in society. To the extent that frequent social interaction detracts from the pursuit of these goals, it may negatively affect their overall satisfaction with life. (More, below.) Hugh Pickens continues: Kanazawa and Li's theory of happiness starts with the premise that the human brain evolved to meet the demands of our ancestral environment on the African savanna, where the population density was akin to what you'd find today in, say, rural Alaska (less than one person per square kilometer). Take a brain evolved for that environment, plop it into today's Manhattan (population density: 27,685 people per square kilometer), and you can see how you'd get some evolutionary friction. "Our ancestors lived as hunter–gatherers in small bands of about 150 individuals," Kanazawa and Li explain. "In such settings, having frequent contact with lifelong friends and allies was likely necessary for survival and reproduction for both sexes." If you're smarter and more able to adapt to things, you may have an easier time reconciling your evolutionary predispositions with the modern world. Accordingly smarter people may be better-equipped to jettison that whole hunter-gatherer social network — especially if they're pursuing some loftier ambition. "Whatever the explanation might prove to be, this obviously doesn't mean smart people don't like having friends," says Emma Cueto. "But it does probably mean that they don't enjoy having too many — after all, keeping track of lots of people does usually involve, you know, talking to them. So if you're naturally more of a loner, congratulations! It might be a sign of intelligence."

Comments

Probably true for everyone

[BarbaraHudson]

Better to have fewer friends, but spend more time with them, than more friends, and only shallow interactions ...

Re:Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, however, setting aside the number of friends, the more interesting matter of concern is how much time you spend with the friends you have.

Some people get a significant chemical payoff when engaging in recreational activities with their friends. So, doing a lot of that maximizes their satisfaction with life. Other people get significant chemical payoff from cultivating their mental abilities (studying and/or applying those abilities towards a meaningful goal). Such people can enjoy (and need) some recreational time with their friends, but not nearly as much. Too much and they will start to feel like they are wasting time and falling behind schedule (even if there isn't a schedule). They maximize their happiness by spending less time with friends (and family).

It is popular to portray such people as selfish, and usually miserable because of their selfishness. This meme is a cultural troll; it is nothing more than one group insisting that their tastes are superior to the tastes of another. It is also defensive, seeing as how people who spend more time focused on the acquisition and utilization of intellectual skills tend to accomplish more and make more money than people who just watch football all day. These attitudes should be seen as pedestrian, and flatly rejected.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Better to have fewer friends, but spend more time with them, than more friends, and only shallow interactions ...

RTFM in the link in the article.

Smarter people are happier when they spend less time with their fewer friends.

Quoting the Washington Post article: "Let me repeat that last one: When smart people spend more time with their friends, it makes them less happy."

I know I am happier spending less time with my fewer friends being as smart as I am. How do I know I am really smart? My Mum had me tested!

Re:Probably true for everyone

[chipschap]

I hate to use the old phrase "quality time" but it comes to mind here. I have a handful of very good friends with whom I interact regularly but not constantly. I don't need or want more than that, and they don't either. So when we do get together, it's terrific. I think there would be rapidly diminishing returns if we got together more and more often.

Email is fine to stay in touch day to day (which doesn't necessarily translate as 'daily' in all cases). We are all really busy, like-minded people, which is probably why we're friends.

I don't understand the idea of calling and talking on the phone for hours daily, or the modern equivalent of texting every other minute. Now, many people do that. I'm not being critical. To each his or her own. Whatever makes you happy.

Drinking beer and watching football at the bar with buddies doesn't do it for me. And, lest you accuse me of being judgmental (when I just said above that I'm not!) --- this puts me outside the mainstream, and many if not most of those football/bar people do judge me for not being "social" enough.

It took me way too long to learn this: When you're outside the mainstream, don't expect acceptance and understanding to be reciprocal.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[Archtech]

It seems to me (as a confessed introvert) that the dominant culture in the USA - and hence one of the most popular cultures in most of the developed world - is strongly extravert. To stereotype mercilessly, most Americans are seen as energetic, conscientious, achievement-oriented team workers. This is especially so in corporate and government environments, for fairly obvious reasons. Since all human strengths have (indeed, are) complementary weaknesses, this entails being somewhat superficial, outer-directed, over-sensitive to consensus, and averse to solitary thought or study. One consequence is that introverts often find themselves feeling excluded, undervalued, or even (in extreme cases) considered as suffering from mental illness.

That's unfortunate, not only begans introverts have just as much right to live their own lives in the way they prefer as extraverts, but also because a lot of progress depends on introverts. Not to say that extraverts can't accomplish a huge amount too - but often the really big breakthroughs, which require focused attention for many months or years on end, have been made by introverts. It would be great if we could ever adjust our social perceptions to accept the whole spectrum of introversion/extraversion.

For a good introduction, anyone unfamiliar with the topic should try http://www.ted.com/talks/susan...

Re: Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Different for everyone. I know people with tons of friends who think it odd I have few and even then don't really like hanging out. One friend has even gone so far as to say my way isn't healthy. Well I'm happy. I'm also happy when socializing with friends in the moment. But when I think about whether I'd like to hang out with friends or go to the forest, beach, trail, or do yard work by myself or with my significant other. I'd much rather be by myself or with my SO.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[fluffernutter]

This kind of explains why it seems important for an executive to be a sociopath then to be intelligent. Also, it kind of explains why intelligent people feel screwed on compensation level. Two equally important qualities, one gets compensated better than the other.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[swb]

I'm not sure it's necessarily the quantity of friends but how you interact with them. As I've gotten older, I've been able to maintain high quality interactions with them without a lot of frequency, which enables a higher number of friends without sacrificing quality.

Groups seem to take on their on dynamic. I've known people I liked individually but wouldn't have gotten much out of in a group. And groups (especially younger groups) often feel like they take on a competitiveness as their numbers go up. People seem to compete to be the group leader or act in ways that demonstrates loyalty or adhesion to the group, and in some ways, punish lack of group adhesion by individual members.

And numbers seem to matter -- groups of 3 never seem to work out, it's too easy to achieve 2 on 1 alliances (especially with a strong personality and weak personality). It's harder with larger odd numbers, but even 5 can result in two pairs with a single person left on their own.

I mostly like to stick to the Woody Allen line -- "I would never join a group that would have someone like me as a member."

Re:Probably true for everyone

[Gr8Apes]

It took me way too long to learn this: When you're outside the mainstream, don't expect acceptance and understanding to be reciprocal.

Don't worry, everyone posting here is outside the mainstream and coincidentally also proves that just because you're introverted doesn't mean you're smart.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[Aighearach]

They don't have to have an anxiety disorder as you describe (feeling like they're wasting time when they're not).

They might still be happier when doing something intellectual than they are the second or third hour "hanging out," without any discontent in either situation.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[fsagx]

I think Woody stole that line from Groucho --

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/04/18/groucho-resigns

Re: Probably true for everyone

[fluffernutter]

Isn't emotional intelligence just making decisions independent of any kind of emotion? What's the difference?

Re:Probably true for everyone

[KGIII]

I like and interact with lots of people. I do not really consider them friends - not necessarily. I'd call them friends because there's no better word for it. They're not mere acquaintances. A friend doesn't need to knock before coming in - but, due to my lifestyle, there's lots of people in that position.

Ah - a friend comes upstairs and uses your bathroom off of your bedroom while you're still sleeping - and then jumps up and down on the bed until you get up and wrestle with them. A friend does that even if your girlfriend is still in the bed with you. I've very few of those but I've plenty of people whom I know, know fairly well, am emotionally intimate with, and can rely on. I still wouldn't really call them friends.

There's something that needs to go between the word friend and acquaintance.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[angel'o'sphere]

Some people get a significant chemical payoff when engaging in recreational activities with their friends
Come one, name it as it is: beer or wine! Sometimes even Whiskey ;D

Re: Probably true for everyone

[Archtech]

Surely "emotional intelligence" is rather a new concept, and not one that is rigorously defined? That may seem like quibbling, but I think it's actually very important - indeed essential. Because the definition of a sociopath includes being charming, manipulative and very convincing. In other words, if you see a sociopath as a black box, he behaves exactly like someone with superb emotional intelligence. You may argue that it's not real, that he doesn't have the genuine emotions or empathy - but if the practical outcome is exactly the same, what difference does it make?

Re:Probably true for everyone

[twistedcubic]

I agree, but it's because I'm introverted, and probably so are you. Our extroverted friends may strongly disagree, though.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[Prof.Phreak]

the dominant culture in the USA - and hence one of the most popular cultures in most of the developed world - is strongly extravert.

No, they're just more outgoing about it :-)

Re:Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Such people can enjoy (and need) some recreational time with their friends, but not nearly as much. Too much and they will start to feel like they are wasting time and falling behind schedule (even if there isn't a schedule)

A good intellectual discussion energizes me like a Red Bull, but a few hours general socializing will leave me feeling like I haven't slept in days. Nothing to do with feeling like I'm "behind schedule".

Re:Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF. You're mingling multiple axes in that post.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[chipschap]

Yours is an excellent post and contains much food for thought. I do however view things much differently, but I don't want to seem to "attack" what you've said, as it provides valuable insight.

Perhaps I have a different idea of what it means to be an introvert or extrovert. In my case, introversion displays as difficulty in starting relationships. However, the ones that do "make" it (that sounds terrible, I know) become very deep and indeed extremely "fault tolerant." I accept and navigate friends' "flaws" because I realize that they are simply part of who they are. They extend the same tolerance to my flaws and faults. It's not at all a matter of limiting time together because of fault intolerance, so to speak.

So I go back to the OP's idea that my group of introverts is simply very busy and wants to get lots of things done, and so we treasure our time together but none of us want it to be so extended that our goals are diverted. In that manner we're supportive of each other. (It might help to know that in my case, my friends are mostly other writers.)

I want to go back, though, and briefly elaborate my unrelated side point: that the bar/football "mainstream" crowd is non-reciprocal. That is, while I can see that those folks enjoy the bar/football experience, and I'm not at all critical of their choice, they will not extend the same tolerance to me and my own choices and interests, which they criticize openly. Example: I once told one of the bar/football people I was going to compete in the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament. He gave me a disdaining look and said, "Is there something wrong with you?"

Re:Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Introverted doesn't mean anti-social. I know many social introverts, they just get exhausted from normal social interactions. In my limited person experience, not being able to be yourself is tiring. When many of us get together, we say what's on our minds without worry, we don't care if we offend, we act how we want to act, and we get along quite well. No issues. The problem is when you have to hang out with normal people who are easily offended and can't seem to carry on an intellectual conversation. I swear, most people can't handle hypothetical discussions. They can't entertain ideas for the sole reason to further the discussion. Ironically, I find most introverts more socially approachable, they're less judgmental but quirky.

Re: Probably true for everyone

[MrKaos]

You may argue that it's not real, that he doesn't have the genuine emotions or empathy - but if the practical outcome is exactly the same, what difference does it make?

The difference is the sociopath is, even unconsciously, trying to manipulate the people around them so they get their supply of others suffering. An emotionally intelligent person has no need for such a supply, their actions may not be altruistic however they aren't designed to cause suffering.

Re: Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, if you see a sociopath as a black box, he behaves exactly like someone with superb emotional intelligence. You may argue that it's not real, that he doesn't have the genuine emotions or empathy - but if the practical outcome is exactly the same, what difference does it make?

Umm, how about whether or not people get hurt?

It's likely that at the most fundamental level life doesn't actually have any purpose. It's not even clear that life having a purpose is even a meaningful concept. Nonetheless, most people end up coming to believe in some sort of purpose for their life.

But different people come to believe in vastly different purposes. Some people believe that the purpose of life is to do as much as you can for yourself (to be as selfish as possible). Other people believe that the purpose of life is to do as much as you can for others (to be as generous as possible). Some people want to change the world (and be remembered forever). Other people want to have no impact (and be quickly forgotten). Some people want to live as full a life as possible (be as busy as possible). Other people want to live as peaceful a life as possible (do as little as possible). And then there's the whole religion thing layered on top.

Someone with high emotional intelligence who is purely selfish could potentially be a sociopath - and would likely cause a lot of suffering in the world. Someone with high emotional intelligence who was very generous would definitely not be a sociopath - and would likely make the world a much better place.

But reciprocity makes things more complicated. When people who are emotionally intelligent develop friendships, they do so slowly. They each progressively do more and more for each other until they reach a level or loyalty and trust where both are comfortable. By building up slowly, either one could walk away from the friendship without it being unfair for the other - because they've both done things for each other. Someone who was entirely selfish (sociopath) could possibly plan some final relationship destroying act of betrayal that would tilt the fairness balance in their favor right at the end. But there is a risk that the sociopath's other friends would become aware of it and then the sociopath would lose many mutually beneficial relationships.

Now, it is true that in relationships where there is a massive power imbalance, it is possible for the person with the power to exploit the person in a position of weakness. And sometimes emotional intelligence can be used to create the power imbalance. But a total loser with no emotional or social intelligence at all can also kidnap some random woman off the street and keep her locked up in his basement as his sex slave - a massive power imbalance that is completely unrelated to emotional intelligence.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of explains why it seems important for an executive to be a sociopath then to be intelligent.

Intelligence, properly utilized, will ultimately win out against the less capable sociopaths. The canonical example is the company that fires engineers only to realize six months later that their critical business systems are no longer working. At that point they either hire back the engineers at double or more the previous salary or they pay consulting rates of $500 per hour or more. Alternatively, if companies are run by idiots then it shouldn't be too difficult to disrupt or out compete them, eating their lunch in the process. This is the approach taken by Silicon Valley and the tech startup culture nurtured by the unique combination of talented young people, available financing, tolerance of failure and a general "devil may care" attitude towards ruffling feathers or upending the apple cart of the status-quo.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

To stereotype mercilessly, most Americans are seen as energetic, conscientious, achievement-oriented team workers.

If we are going to be stereotyping mercilessly, I would argue most people view Americans primarily as trigger-happy Bible-thumping idiots who cannot find their home country on a map and drive around all day in ugly cars the size of an elephant in order to accelerate global warming as much as possible, taking breaks only to order fast food and to sue people.

But then, a stereotype is nothing more than just that. It may describe peculiarities of a culture to some extent, but it does not say anything meaningful about individuals.

Re: Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

You may argue that it's not real, that he doesn't have the genuine emotions or empathy - but if the practical outcome is exactly the same, what difference does it make?

The difference is the sociopath is, even unconsciously, trying to manipulate the people around them so they get their supply of others suffering. An emotionally intelligent person has no need for such a supply, their actions may not be altruistic however they aren't designed to cause suffering.

An emotionally intelligent person's actions, however, are completely about trying to manipulate the people around them so they get their supply of whatever it is that they want.

Re: Probably true for everyone

[MrKaos]

An emotionally intelligent person's actions, however, are completely about trying to manipulate the people around them so they get their supply of whatever it is that they want.

As I said, their actions may not be altruistic. Achieving goals is different from wanting to make people suffer. The important distinction is empathy and the effect of having it usually because of suffering adversity themselves.

If you've ever experienced the destructiveness of a sociopath you would understand the difference.

Re: Probably true for everyone

[Falconnan]

Sociopaths simply don't care but for their advantage, and not all sociopaths are sadists in the least. Emotional intelligence is still poorly defined in some respects, but being able to navigate the emotional landscape of others to your desired goal seems like intelligence to me. Further, I would argue that there is a difference between understanding the motivations of others, and feeling them yourself. Sociopathy itself is not really a bad thing in all cases based on manifestation and career. In those careers the most successful often care the least, which is one reason why I didn't choose one of those.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Commenting to undo moderation - I swear I clicked on "Funny" but it entered "Overrated".

Re: Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an enormous fallacy that sociopaths lack empathy. How would they be able to manipulate someone if they weren't able to feel into that person? Empathy is indispensable for being a sociopath or a torturer, at least as much as for being a therapist or a teacher.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[tehcyder]

Example: I once told one of the bar/football people I was going to compete in the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament. He gave me a disdaining look and said, "Is there something wrong with you?"

That's what comes from starting conversations in the men's room with total strangers.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[BarbaraHudson]

Ah - a friend comes upstairs and uses your bathroom off of your bedroom while you're still sleeping - and then jumps up and down on the bed until you get up and wrestle with them. A friend does that even if your girlfriend is still in the bed with you.

WARNING - They're not friends - they're KIDS. And they will come into the bedroom at the worst times possible. That's why you need vaseline - put some on the door knob and the kids will go "EWWWW" and leave you alone :-)

Re:Probably true for everyone

[KGIII]

Meh, I just walk around naked in my bedroom. Now that they've fled the nest, well... I'd walk around naked now but I have people here still - except now there's only three extras and the missus and I.

So, there's a lock on the door. I use it. 'Cause I like being naked.

Re:Probably true for everyone

[david_thornley]

I'm not convinced you've got a good grasp on introversion vs. extroversion, based partly on my observations and experience. While your behavior may have changed, I have doubts that you went from introvert to extrovert and back. Without actually knowing you, I'd suspect that you're somewhere in between.

The introverts I tend to hang around with tend not to be easy to offend, and very accepting of differences between people. The extroverts I know tend to be somewhat less concerned with the differences of others, and generally seem to assume that everyone is an extrovert. The most autistic person I know is a serious extrovert, although I understand this isn't common.

I have observed absolutely nothing like your paean to extroverts. I don't perceive them as healthier, or harder to annoy, or more interested in collaborative thinking (other than the fact that they're more interested in being around other people).

I don't have a long list of "petty predilictions", but you're hitting on one or two with your prejudice against people like me.

Re: Probably true for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellently put.

Woohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, guys. I'm not a smelly, pantsless loser, I'm just ahead of the curve.

Re:Woohoo

[Aighearach]

It doesn't say that. It just says you'll be happier if you stay in the basement than you would be if you went out and found other pantsless losers to "hang out" with.

Re:Woohoo

[KGIII]

It also does not speculate on the happiness of the person they might go hang out with nor does it speculate on the happiness of others who might have occasion to witness the spectacle.

I'm very well-off

[penguinoid]

Scientists Say Smart People Are Better Off With Fewer Friends

I'm doing very well.

Re:I'm very well-off

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really were smart, you wouldn't have drawn such a fallacious conclusion.

Re:I'm very well-off

[Anonymous Coward]

Smarter people would have seen the joke.

Re:I'm very well-off

[Anonymous Coward]

We see you just fine.

Re:I'm very well-off

[Anonymous Coward]

Better dumb and happy than smart and without any friends.

-- Danny Elfman (Change)

Re:I'm very well-off

[Archtech]

Better dumb and happy than smart and without any friends.

At least that's what people who are dumb and happy think... 8-)

Re:I'm very well-off

[Archtech]

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."
- John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)
http://www.utilitarianism.com/...

Re:I'm very well-off

[Darinbob]

I agree. I can drink my bottle of wine in the corner in the dark and not have to share it with anyone and no one tries to talk me back into rehab.

Re:I'm very well-off

[Darinbob]

Dumb people never get the feeling that they're working with a bunch of idiots all the time.

Re:I'm very well-off

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb people never get the feeling that they're working with a bunch of idiots all the time.

Amen. It's a constant source of stress and frustration for me.

Re:I'm very well-off

[Anonymous Coward]

The quote could be made more apposite by inserting an "of" in the appropriate place.

Re:I'm very well-off

[tehcyder]

Dumb people never get the feeling that they're working with a bunch of idiots all the time.

Amen. It's a constant source of stress and frustration for me.

That's the problem when you leave school with no qualifications because you were so clever you got bored and disruptive and are now working cleaning public toilets.

Re:I'm very well-off

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."
- John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)

To this John Stuart Mill, I have a succinct retort:

"Fuck off."

That quote is a wholesome bit of tripe. It's a smart person's way of rationalizing their inability to live with their reality. It's not "advice"; it's "delusion".

You do yourself a disservice when you go through life dissatisfied because you are unable to reach a self-imposed goal. Always aim high - but always accept that if you don't reach that high goal, you still need to be satisfied with the state of your life, including the failures. Re-calibrate, try again.

And if a person cannot do that, then at the very least, I hope that person does not choose to inflict their misery upon the rest of humanity. Those individuals who choose to live as a dissatisfied Socrates and then tell us all about it are a pox upon humanity. They are no better than the satisfied pigs who smear their garbage across the social landscape.

tl;dr: If you choose to be miserable, then it sucks to be you; either keep your shit to yourself or fix your shit.

Re:I'm very well-off

[Archtech]

Thanks!

Not "scientiststs"

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolutionary psychologists.

Re:Not "scientiststs"

[93 Escort Wagon]

At first glance, the title reads like it might be from an Onion article - like Jock Scientists Discover Gay Gene in Carl.

Dilbert

[michaelmalak]

http://dilbert.com/strip/2013-10-10

Re:Dilbert

[Okian Warrior]

Also this cartoon.

I just this week found this one, cut it out and pasted it on the wall of my office.

I've been telling people for months "I don't do drama" and it's not helping.

Re:Dilbert

[Aighearach]

I've been telling people for months "I don't do drama" and it's not helping.

You went off the rails at "telling people" in the first place. No, when they provide you with unwanted drama, you just need to stop telling them things, or listening to things they say. The only time you would tell them that you "don't do drama" would be after you've already stopped talking to them and they want to know why.

Smart people more likely working on their hobby...

[UnknownSoldier]

... then wasting time socializing on bullshit topics likes (un)reality TV, soaps, social media, etc.

That's not to say they don't check social media like /. or Reddit -- they do -- but they would rather be creating then socializing the majority of the time.

/me Back to working on my OS ...

--
"Stop telling your big dreams to small minded people"

Alternative theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart people just feel annoyed by idiots and assholes.

Re:Alternative theory

[__aaclcg7560]

As a smart person, I post on Slashdot to annoy the idiots and assholes.

Re:Alternative theory

[Anonymous Coward]

As a smart person, I post on Slashdot to annoy the idiots and assholes.

Then you have your work cut out for you, Slashdot is usually overrun with idiots and assholes.

Re:Alternative theory

[__aaclcg7560]

Then you have your work cut out for you, Slashdot is usually overrun with idiots and assholes.

When I first got started on Slashdot in 1999, it was overrun by trolls and goatse.

Re:Alternative theory

[WallyL]

When I first got started on Slashdot in 2014, it was overrun by trolls and goatse.

Conflating smart people and introverts

[Theovon]

It sounds like this article is mixing up “smart people” with “introverts.” What about the really smart extraverts? Richard Feynman was very extraverted, he had lots of friends, hung around with them a lot, and was very successful.

Re:Conflating smart people and introverts

[Anonymous Coward]

There are extremes in every category.

Smart extroverts generally either:

1) Spend so much time partying that they never capitalize on their intelligence potential, and wind up with a life full of mediocre accomplishments (but lots of fun).

-or-

2) Cultivate the dark triad of personality traits, and wind up becoming extremely powerful, wealthy, and successful, and also running hot women through their bedroom like a fast food restaurant.

#2 isn't a bad deal....if you don't have any scruples about being an asshole.

Re:Conflating smart people and introverts

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart extroverts generally either:

1) Spend so much time partying that they never capitalize on their intelligence potential, and wind up with a life full of mediocre accomplishments (but lots of fun).

Maybe making and keeping multiple friends is the achievement

Re:Conflating smart people and introverts

[Aighearach]

Maybe they're not "mixing up" anything, maybe they found a correlation?

I recommend actually reading all of Feynman's memoirs. He had great charisma and liked people, but he was also somewhat introverted. He doesn't talk about having a lot of friends, though he does talk about meeting people and having an interest in meeting different sorts of people from different walks of life.

He actually describes spending most of his time alone, working on various math problems.

Being a good public speaker and enjoying people-watching doesn't really make him an extrovert. If you understand the technical difference between introvert and extrovert it becomes obvious; he didn't care about the "social environment," he cared about his own thoughts and feelings. For example where he talks about uniforms, and social expectations to "look like a professor." Those really expose where he is on that spectrum.

Introvert doesn't mean hermit; a charismatic introvert can be a great public speaker, and famous as a "people person." It doesn't keep them from spending the weekend working on a project, though. ;)

Re:Conflating smart people and introverts

[KGIII]

It's also possible to be an introvert and have loads of friends. You don't need to rely on others to have friends. You can be outgoing and bubbly and still be an introvert. Chances are, those people are a source of comfort and help for extroverts.

I'm not sure why people think introverts are isolationists who do not associate with others. That's not what introvert means. It does, to some extent, help you identify those who are but it's certainly not exclusionary. I don't really need a lot from other people, I'm probably considered an introvert. Yet, I've bunches of people that I know, a very active social life*, and even able to discuss emotions and accept/ask for feedback.

Not everyone (as you alluded to in your earlier post - this is sort of me expanding on that here as well) has a mental illness. Not everyone is some sort of extremist. Some of us are fairly normal. At least outwardly appearing to be so.

[*] It varies. I do go through periods where it's mental crunch time (for wont of a better word) and I'll isolate. I go through periods of time where my only interaction with people is via remote. I'm usually recharging, thinking, or creating during those spells. It should be interesting to see how the fairly recently acquired missus will deal with it when it happens again. Then again, she's rather compelling. Maybe she'll help keep me from going full isolationist.

Re:Conflating smart people and introverts

[NicknameUnavailable]

It sounds like this article is mixing up “smart people” with “introverts.” What about the really smart extraverts? Richard Feynman was very extraverted, he had lots of friends, hung around with them a lot, and was very successful.

Introverts can act in a not-introverted manner. Feynman's bongo obsession should be enough to confirm him as an introverted autist that got placed in a lot of social situations. From the FBI files on Feynman:

...the appointee's wife was granted a divorce from him because of appointee's constantly working calculus problems in his head as soon as awake, while driving car, sitting in living room, and so forth, and that his one hobby was playing his African drums. His ex-wife reportedly testified that on several occasions when she unwittingly disturbed either his calculus or his drums he flew into a violent rage, during which time he attacked her, threw pieces of bric-a-brac about and smashed the furniture.

Re:Conflating smart people and introverts

[Anonymous Coward]

Never interrupt a man when he's beating his drum.

A minor correction

[petes_PoV]

There are a lot of things wrong with this article. The idea that doctors spend their time curing cancer - hmmm, maybe one in ten thousand. Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better). And I have yet to meet any lawyer IRL who was both intelligent AND spent all their time doing civil rights cases.

I also don't buy the "evolutionary" or sociological explanation. The population density of our ancestors might have been tiny, when measured over a whole country. But because they stuck together, it was clearly much higher in the groups they lived in. Since it took much more effort to build a house, they tended to be small and close to each other (within the village walls).

I would suggest that one reason that intelligent people would have fewer friends is the difficulty they would experience in finding like-minded individuals to be friends with. It wouldn't be very fulfilling for someone with a brain the size of a planet to spend all their time with people who only talked about soaps and sport.

Re:A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

And I have yet to meet any lawyer IRL who was both intelligent AND spent all their time doing civil rights cases.

So you think people that care about civil rights are stupid morons? How very Republican of you. I know the Republican-controlled mass media agrees with you. They hate those of us that believe in rights. They stand against us. Stand against us.

Re: A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

It is amazing how stupid the average American is. They think, for example, being a community organizer isn't a real job. Jessie Jackson has done more for humanity than all of the Republicans combined.

Re: A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Jessie Jackson has done more for humanity than all of the Republicans combined.

What about ending slavery?

Re:A minor correction

[__aaclcg7560]

Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better).

Stephen King wrote several novels or so while working as a teacher during the school year and the laundromat during the summers. Most were rejected. His first published novel, "Carrie," earned him a $2,500 advance. The paperback rights got him $200,000. The rest was history.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/53235/how-stephen-kings-wife-saved-carrie-and-launched-his-career

It wouldn't be very fulfilling for someone with a brain the size of a planet to spend all their time with people who only talked about soaps and sport.

I used to put people to sleep by discussing why Adolf Hitler attacking the Russians and opening a second front during World War II led to his destruction.

Re: A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Jessie Jackson has done more for humanity than all of the Republicans combined.

What about ending slavery?

You're full of crap. It was James Buchanan, a Democrat, that put everything in motion to end slavery. By the time Lincoln stole the election (had less than 40% of the vote, the people didn't want a damn Republican ruler), that thug had no choice but to be swept away by the tidal wave created by the Democrats. The Republicans did not and have never done anything to help the people.

Re:A minor correction

[wonkey_monkey]

Stephen King wrote several novels or so while working as a teacher during the school year and the laundromat during the summers. Most were rejected. His first published novel, "Carrie," earned him a $2,500 advance. The paperback rights got him $200,000. The rest was history.

What is the life story of one author (who has his fair share of detractors when it comes to his literary prowess) meant to indicate?

Re:A minor correction

[dcollins]

"Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better)."

Maybe they've realized that you can't take money with you when you check out, and they've decided to pursue a longer-term impact.

Re:A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

They used extreme examples (doctor curing cancer, etc) to illustrate what's going on, but it would apply to other, less grand, things as well. The guy who spends a ton of his personal time coding his latest project, or the woman who is always out kayaking with her dog. Neither is really doing anything grand with their lives, compared to the guy curing cancer, but both are doing something they really love to focus on.

Back when I was still dating, I came to a similar conclusion as this study, although I didn't exactly frame it the same way. For me, the question I'd use to test someone was "what do you like to do for fun?". Now that sounds incredibly generic, but the sheer amount of people who answered something along the lines of "listen to music, watch movies, and hang out with friends" was astonishing to me. I started to realize that those people really didn't have any hobbies or interests or goals or anything; they just existed and socialized. Now if someone actually had a different answer, and responded with something like "I love to paint" or "I volunteer at the shelter twice a month" or "I work a lot, and really love what I do for a living", then I knew I found someone worth being around.

Re: A minor correction

[__aaclcg7560]

By the time Lincoln stole the election (had less than 40% of the vote, the people didn't want a damn Republican ruler), that thug had no choice but to be swept away by the tidal wave created by the Democrats.

Democrats were pro-slavery and the Republicans were anti-slavery in the 1860's. That changed in the 1960's when the Democrats became pro-civil rights and the Republicans became anti-civil rights. Many white racists left the Democratic Party to become the Republicans in the 1960's. These are the same people who are rallying behind Donald Trump today. They lost in the 1860's and the 1960's, and will lose again in 2016.

Re:A minor correction

[turbidostato]

"Maybe they've realized that you can't take money with you when you check out, and they've decided to pursue a longer-term impact."

Maybe but then... didn't they realize that you can't take long-term impact with you when you check out either?

Re:A minor correction

[__aaclcg7560]

What is the life story of one author (who has his fair share of detractors when it comes to his literary prowess) meant to indicate?

Stephen King is a great writer who became wealthy through luck and circumstances. If his wife told him to put away his typewriter to get a Real Job to support his family, the literary world would be a sadder place.

Re: A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats were not pro-slavery you pukianz azzhole.

Re:A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

"It wouldn't be very fulfilling for someone with a brain the size of a planet to spend all their time with people who only talked about soaps and sport."

Disagree. Why do people have pets? Because they enjoy spending time with their pets despite the intellectual difference.

Also no matter how smart you think you are there are other people that know things you don't know, that can think of things in a way you would never think of but are worth considering. Finding like minded people is not going to help your intellect because then you will simply agree with everyone and no one will challenge you. Finding people that think differently than you is what forces you to be able to learn how to defend your beliefs and thoughts because then you are being challenged by those that disagree with you and you can engage and challenge each other. I would even venture to say that the smartest people are the people that listen the most to various viewpoints and are able to look at a problem from all sorts of different angles and see things from everyone's perspectives because then their view is not so narrow minded.

Re:A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, everyone knows smart doctors spend their free time screwing nurses.

Re: A minor correction

[__aaclcg7560]

Democrats were not pro-slavery you pukianz azzhole.

You must have fallen asleep in social studies class when the Civil War was being discussed.

Re:A minor correction

[__aaclcg7560]

You essentially just described WWII in a sentence.

If I explain that one sentence to you for three hours, you will be falling asleep.

Re: A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget. Donald Trump was a democrat until the late 80's and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clintons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Political_affiliations

Re: A minor correction

[__aaclcg7560]

Donald Trump was a democrat until the late 80's and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clintons.

If you bothered to read your link, Donald Trump donated to both political parties. That's a smart business strategy considering the political fortunes of each party tends ebb and flow between political cycles.

Re:A minor correction

[DrJimbo]

Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better).

What you say may sound reasonable and obvious but it is based on the assumption that money is a good motivator for creative behavior which has been scientifically proven to be factually incorrect. Take a look at this TED Talk by Dan Pink for an easily digested explanation: On Motivation.

In a more global context, the fact that monetary rewards stifle creativity could explain many deep, systematic problems in our society. Perhaps it is unwise for us to put people who are strongly motivated by monetary rewards into positions of leadership. Not only is fear the mind-killer, it seems money is a mind-killer as well. If we want creative solutions to our problems then the last thing we need are leaders who are primarily motivated by fear and money.

Re:A minor correction

[GuB-42]

Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better).

Pay doesn't determine intelligence. If you are intelligent and use that for money, then you will certainly earn a lot.
But there is more to life than money, it is well known that passed a certain point, more money doesn't make you much happier. And a trait of intelligent people is that they can do what they like the way they like and still manage to make a living, even if it isn't millions.

Re:A minor correction

[smooth wombat]

The problem was (and I've had this very discussion with people) not him invading Russia but not letting those he asked to plan invasion stick to their plans.

If you've read Hitler's Panzers East you would know the author showed that before the six week halt outside Moscow, the Wehrmacht had achieved every single goal it had set out to do, in some case ahead of schedule. Further, at that point there was no significant, organized Russian resistance.

However, as the author relates, Hitler's mentality (such that is was) was about forming a fortress and to do that he felt he had to destroy all resistance, not grasping the significance that Stalingrad could have been left to wither on the vine because by taking Moscow and its rail yards, no supplies or reinforcements could have reached the last remaining, strong Russian forces.

Just like his meddling at Dunkirk, he allowed the enemy to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat.

Re:A minor correction

[dcollins]

The whole point is that it's something you give, not something you take.

Re:A minor correction

[KGIII]

That really depends on the "you." I happened to spend a great amount of time studying history - especially WWII history as it is one of my favorite subjects. I'd listen for several hours so long as you were willing to accept interjections. Unless it was a formal lecture. If it were a discussion, it could go on for days. If it were a lecture and you knew what you spoke of then I'd probably listen for a few hours. However, no... Not conversationally, I'd not.

I suspect I'm just making clear (to me, at least) what you probably intended but it's hard to tell. I already *do* listen to people discuss the subject for several hours. I've watched every single documentary on the subject I can find. I watch almost nothing but documentaries. I read a lot of history books. I really do already listen to people discuss that very subject for longer periods of time than just three hours. I've seen documentary series that were nearing 60 hours in length and some even longer.

So, yeah. This particular "you" might listen - if you knew what you were talking about. Presumably you do. So, I'd probably listen.

Re: A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

I love to laugh.

Re:A minor correction

[westlake]

Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better)

Money isn't everything.

Case in point, the novelists, essayists, philosophers, poets and journalists, among others, whose work has been chosen for preservation by the Library of America.

Re:A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

> For me, the question I'd use to test someone was "what do you like to do for fun?"

The correct answer, for me to hear, would be, "Everything. I try to have fun with everything I do. Even if it's tedious, work, or uncomfortable."

Meh, I'll post this AC.

Re:A minor correction

[spire3661]

Some people believe that you only truly die when your name is uttered for the last time.

Re:A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Also: Rich people are surprisingly dumb.

Re: A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't dis sports in small doses. A smart guy can arm chair coach these days, and if they see a long standing mistake in coaching, they can sound off on social media. I've seen successful adjustments in coaching that happened on social media before it happened with the personell in the organization. Sports are games, and there is deep strategy in games.

Re:A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Stephen King is a great writer who became wealthy through luck and circumstances

There was luck but also a whole lot of hard work. Both Stephen King and his wife, Tabitha, were trying to be writers and both had real, low paying jobs to support their family. The novel Carrie was Stephen King's first big success and his wife encouraged him to stick with the book when he was thinking of giving up on it. Stephen King talks about all this in his book On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft . It's a good read.

Re:A minor correction

[turbidostato]

"Some people believe that you only truly die when your name is uttered for the last time."

Some people also believe an old white-bearded Man of Sky opened the Red Sea waters for another old white-bearded man to pass through, so go figure!

Re:A minor correction

[Black Parrot]

No, the entire campaign was only supposed to take six weeks. As some historian has pointed out, you can't blame it's failure on decisions taken after it was already supposed to be complete.

Re:A minor correction

[strikethree]

I would suggest that one reason that intelligent people would have fewer friends is the difficulty they would experience in finding like-minded individuals to be friends with. It wouldn't be very fulfilling for someone with a brain the size of a planet to spend all their time with people who only talked about soaps and sport.

True. What happens is that a person has a particular interest or passion or finds others who share that same interest or passion and then proceed to interact on that basis.

I have zero friends who are fully capable of understanding all of me or even dealing/accepting all of me. I have a few friends that I share interests with and can discuss various topics with. Honestly, I suspect that is all many of us can hope for. We are all so radically different that fully understanding someone else, even a dullard, may be impossible.

Hmmm. I covered about 3 chapters worth of discussion there and it may be inscrutable to you or anyone else. My apologies.

TL;DR deep friends are harder to find as you get smarter.

Re:A minor correction

[wonkey_monkey]

Well, "great" is subjective, but regardless, I don't see what one particular author's route to fame and fortune has to do with the assertion that "Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better)."

Re: A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. It is also the primary reason why democracy in the US is broken.

Re:A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's his thing about not handing out winter gear because he refused to accept possibility of it going over into the winter.

Re:A minor correction

[avandesande]

I can't speak for writers but I am a fan of classical music, and the majority of the great composers died completely broke. Most of them had IQ estimated in the 160 range- surely there is more to life than profit motive.

Re:A minor correction

[david_thornley]

There was significant, organized, Soviet resistance at that time, and the German objectives were not met. The remaining Red Army was considerably stronger than the pre-invasion planning had suggested. You need to read a few more books on the topic.

Hitler wanted to continue the destruction of the Red Army, while his generals tended to want to keep driving east. One of the problems with Operation Barbarossa in 1941 was that there was no overall strategy. I think the Germans would have done better if Hitler had been more or less controlling.

One reason the Germans were able to get to Stalingrad and the Caucasus (in 1942) was that the Soviets were guarding Moscow more heavily. It's not clear how well a German attack against Moscow would have worked.

It's worth noting that the German chain of command was pretty evenly divided on whether there should have been a strong armored attack on Dunkirk, each level having the opposite opinion from the ones above and below. The German Army was then in the middle of a long and risky campaign, and did not expect the British to be able to mount that much of an evacuation operation. It seemed prudent to keep the army in good shape for the next phase of the Battle of France, and reasonable to concentrate on beating France before worrying too much about Britain - not to mention that the evacuation was a matter of saving potential military forces, not keeping British combat strength up.

It's easy to win a historical argument when one is allowed to make unchallenged assumptions about what would have happened under other circumstances.

Re:A minor correction

[david_thornley]

It's more complicated than that. The idea was that the campaign would be over before winter. As winter approached, the Germans had advanced so far that their supply lines were long and overtaxed, and the Germans could use all the military supplies they could get. If the Germans shipped winter equipment forward, they were sending less ammo, and the German Army would have more difficulty attacking Soviet cities and finding better winter quarters.

Re:A minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

What some people believe is besides the point. The point is that different people have different utility functions. In simpler terms, they appreciate different things. I doubt that the average mathematician is dumber than the average bank manager and that he chose his career path because he didn't realize it didn't pay all that well. For some people the cars and the boats and the expensive clothes don't make up for what they see as a worthless and boring career.

Well, no shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a few friends, and that is enough.

wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[swell]

Much of the summary assumes that happiness is important. And that it's important to smart people.

I propose that the desire for happiness is inversely proportional to intelligence. I have no statistical proof, only personal and historical experience. As one learns about the discerning and creative people around them and the ones that they read about in biographies and historical documents, one must consider how often did these people sit around to chat with neighbors and chums. If they interacted with other people, it was probably in pursuit of some greater purpose.

On the other hand, I will be meeting with 5 'developmentally disabled' people this morning who are very happy and who value that state of being very much. What's your experience in this regard?

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[dcollins]

One thing I'd say is that I'm constantly surprised by the truly immense amount of written correspondence that the great thinkers carried out with other people throughout their years.

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Written correspondence is a thinking person's medium of choice. It affords time to iterate over responses and craft complex thoughts precisely. Other types of communication just don't give the opportunity for the high-quality high-complexity communication intelligent people crave.

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[jeffb (2.718)]

This explains the explosive intellectual development that resulted from the introduction of Twitter. Or, for that matter, Usenet.

Waxing a bit more serious, written correspondence does afford the opportunity for depth, precision, complexity, and refinement. Unfortunately, it in no way enforces them.

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[Hartree]

Happiness is a very misunderstood concept, I think. We confuse it with the feeling we have during a peak moment. In truth, most of the time we don't feel that way. And it's through no fault of our own, or anyone else. Moods come and go for reasons we often don't really understand.

If I'm "happy", great. If not, I keep on living regardless.

I aspire more to "satisfaction" than "happiness". Though it may be just a matter of different terms, I really don't know how to make myself happy (Though a direct increase in dopamine release might come close. That's called snorting cocaine. No thanks.). But I can nearly always do something to make myself more satisfied. Even if it's just putting on dry socks so my feet aren't cold.

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[swell]

Happiness is a recent concept.

In the middle ages people faced either survival or death. Survival was generally preferred and so people worked hard and suffered difficulties in an effort to stave off death. There was no such luxury as TV, books or even a day off. No time to contemplate the infinite universe (but for a few monks, nobles, etc). And no glimmer of what happiness might consist of.

Even before the Middle Ages, the Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese and Mesopotamian people may not have understood or valued happiness as we know it.

Today large parts of humankind feel the same alienation to the concept of happiness. Hindu people, for instance have entertainment available but seem not to be generally happy. Buddha was on a pilgrimage to find out how to eliminate pain and some Buddhists have achieved that, but are they happy? Mohammad followers, both normal and extremist, don't display much joy in their existence. Hard core Christians, like devout followers of other faiths, seem to me to be lacking in joy, contentment or any measure of happiness.

Yes, there are exceptions, and every generalization is wrong. Much depends upon the definition of happiness and until that is fully agreed upon we have only our instincts to guide us.

Ultimately, as said earlier, happiness may not be a worthy goal. But it exists in some degree to most of us and it's better than some alternatives.

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the summary assumes that happiness is important. And that it's important to smart people.

I'm not smart and I haven't had a particularly happy life. But I have had immense educational privilege relative to most people on the planet (MIT, PhD, biomedical research career, etc).

And so my problem is that all around me everyday I see people making bad choices and hurting each other for no reason. For example, I'll be riding to work on the subway and it will be massively overcrowded and then someone who is obviously sick will let out a huge sneeze releasing a massive cloud of infectious pathogen aerosol all over everyone in the vicinity. And most people will just stand there breathing it in - oblivious to the fact that they are likely to come down sick after the standard (typically 2-day) incubation period. And that they will then probably also infect people they care about - such as their own children.

It wouldn't really be that hard for a person to carry a small towel or wash cloth when they're sick on public transportation - and cough and sneeze into that in order to contain most of the infectious aerosol. But they don't. Increasingly, people in Japan do wear face masks in public to reduce the spread of infectious disease. But Japan is an unusually educated country with unusually high population densities.

More broadly, though, my problem isn't that it would be hard for me to take a larger piece of the economic pie for myself and to be relatively happy. My problem is that if I take a bigger piece of the economic pie for myself then that generally means that other people get less. So I really struggle to find a way to be happy that doesn't involve making other people unhappy.

Perhaps one key reason that less intelligent/educated people are happier is because they are oblivious to the harm that their happiness causes to others.

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[TapeCutter]

It also assumes a person is either introverted or extroverted when in reality most people adapt their behaviour to deal with whatever social context they find themselves in.

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Happiness is a recent concept.

Epicurus might disagree with you there.

In the middle ages people faced either survival or death. Survival was generally preferred and so people worked hard and suffered difficulties in an effort to stave off death.

Most of human history has consisted of a small, mostly hereditary, ruling class living out lives of ease, luxury, and most probably even quite a bit of happiness - by viciously exploiting everyone else. In his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln laid out the idea that the USA should be different: with a government of, by, and for the (ordinary) people.

In modern times, there is huge variation. The Scandinavian socialist countries, for example, have governments that do pretty decent job of looking out for the interests of ordinary people. But there are lot and lots of countries all of the world that have governments that keep the ordinary people in those countries trapped in desperate poverty for exploitation by a small mostly hereditary ruling class. The key idea is that many countries that are thought of as being poor also have a small ruling class that is fabulously wealthy. For example, Mexico is often thought of as being a poor country but Carlos Slim, currently the world's second richest man, is from Mexico.

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[hendrips]

Your historical analysis is way off. Here, for instance, is what one writer says about Medieval Europe:

Plowing and harvesting were backbreaking toil, but the [medieval] peasant enjoyed anywhere from eight weeks to half the year off. The Church, mindful of how to keep a population from rebelling, enforced frequent mandatory holidays. Weddings, wakes and births might mean a week off quaffing ale to celebrate, and when wandering jugglers or sporting events came to town, the peasant expected time off for entertainment. There were labor-free Sundays, and when the plowing and harvesting seasons were over, the peasant got time to rest, too. In fact, economist Juliet Shor found that during periods of particularly high wages, such as 14th-century England, peasants might put in no more than 150 days a year.

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[careysub]

Your historical analysis is way off. Here, for instance, is what one writer says about Medieval Europe:

Plowing and harvesting were backbreaking toil, but the [medieval] peasant enjoyed anywhere from eight weeks to half the year off. The Church, mindful of how to keep a population from rebelling, enforced frequent mandatory holidays. Weddings, wakes and births might mean a week off quaffing ale to celebrate, and when wandering jugglers or sporting events came to town, the peasant expected time off for entertainment. There were labor-free Sundays, and when the plowing and harvesting seasons were over, the peasant got time to rest, too. In fact, economist Juliet Shor found that during periods of particularly high wages, such as 14th-century England, peasants might put in no more than 150 days a year.

Interesting - but a Reuters news story does not a meaningful historical analysis make. Here is a good counterpoint to this (very misleading) thesis.

OTOH, it is well established that (from actual observation) surviving hunter-gatherer societies have more leisure time. This is partly due to the lack of a compulsion to "make stuff" (maintain a more complex dwelling, clothing, tool requirements, etc.).

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[The-Ixian]

Yeah, I see happiness as a scattershot phenomenon and not so much a spectrum thing.

There are hundreds of tiny things that make me happy every day (your socks comment is a perfect example of one). There at least as many things that make me unhappy every day.

There will never be a time when there are 0 points on either side. The trick is to get all of the happy points concentrated together and the unhappy points scattered and alone.

I would never describe myself as a happy person. But I am not an exclusively unhappy person either.

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[david_thornley]

I really doubt that the desire for happiness is less in intelligent people. They often derive happiness from different things. If I had to sit around and chat with neighbors and chums all day, I assure you I wouldn't be happy. If some other people had to sit around and work on intellectually challenging problems all day, they wouldn't be happy.

Re:wrong priority for intelligent people ?

[david_thornley]

Extroversion is a fairly stable personality trait. It has nothing to do with adapting behavior to circumstances, which everyone does.

Well this want hard to predict

[chispito]

Lots of posts saying "Yeah, smart people understand me, but people I don't understand are dumb."

intelligent or not, having goals takes focus

[roman_mir]

I wouldn't be talking about a level of intelligence specifically but I want to point out that anybody who is focused on a goal will feel irritated when detracted from the task in front of them that works towards that goal and having friends invite you to various social interactions is taking time away from those tasks. I know it first hand, I had to decline quite a number of invitations over the years because I do not have time for this, I am busy and what I am busy with is part of my overall goal.

Re:intelligent or not, having goals takes focus

[Anonymous Coward]

I am busy

Sure. Busy posting on Slashdot.

Re:intelligent or not, having goals takes focus

[martrootamm]

If I had all your invitations within the city I live in, I'd be much happier, because potentially free food :-)

The smarter, the difficulter to find non-idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

I call it the relativity theory.

False dichotomy

[djinn6]

Socializing with friends and working on a long-term goal are not mutually exclusive. If your friend is also a doctor and also working on a cure for cancer, then socializing with them can significantly speed up your progress. Even if they're in a different field, discussing your ideas with them can bring new insights. I've gotten some good ideas from talking to people, sometimes even before they started speaking. Formulating my problems into words that an outsider could understand forces me to think about it in a different, easier-to-solve, way.

In other words, get better friends.

My life must be perfect, then...

[cirby]

Just saying.

Re:Smart people more likely working on their hobby

[dugancent]

You need better friends. I have a group that I hang out with and none talk about any of the topics you listed.

Aw Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just saying that to make me feel smart and less lonely.

Early Stages of Evolution

[lazy genes]

Intelligence is the ability to not ignore reality. The stages of getting there can be difficult when our species is still in the early stages of evolution. The first step in getting out of the "survival of the fittest" stage is to realize that discrimination and prejudice is merely a genetic reflex. It is difficult to hate everyone Equally and still have close friends. But still, a small price for intellegence.

But, but, but...

[RobinH]

But everyone *knows* that if you want to do something alone it means you have a mental disorder! I went on a trip to the Caribbean once (there were several couples and we all went together). First day we were headed down to the beach, I brought a book plopped down in a chair and started reading while everyone else went in the water. At least two others came by and asked me if I was OK, and if I was feeling well. I'm like, "yeah, this is awesome!" The silly thing is they were mostly psychologists, but they've been steeped in the cult of "positive energy" or something, I guess. My wife understood and didn't bother me, but it was a little off-putting to have people assume something was wrong with me.

Besides, most of the "normal" people you talk to just repeat the same old stuff about magnets healing their sore elbows, or some device they put on their car that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen and gives them better fuel mileage, or about whatever they saw on Fox News or CNN last night. Giving them serious looks and nodding your approval all day does get really tiring. You can call it introversion if you want, but I'm pretty sure an actor would be tired if they had to give a 12 to 16-hour performance very day too.

Re:But, but, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. I went to Hawaii for a week and had packed 6-7 books to entertain myself by the beach. That was perfect. Though others found it bit amusing when they saw pile of books and a paperpad and a pen.

Sounds stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a smart person and I like to spend time with my friends.
Of course at some point I need some time alone, but mostly I can spend every day with them as long as there are some breaks in between.
I can't imagine anyone can spend 24 hours per day with other people and not have it be an exhausting experience.

Disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Having friends imposes intellectual demands on you. First of all you need to learn to speak clearly. Speaking clearly and writing clearly are different things and people don't usually speak how they write and are often expected not to. Knowing how to speak under a variety of contexts (ie: a public speech vs a casual conversation with your friends vs a debate, etc...) requires a variety of different skills and is a skill in itself. Secondly you may be required to know what you are talking about when conversing with others to some extent without having the luxury of always having to verify every detail on the Internet. It's too inefficient to have to look up every detail on the Internet in a casual conversation yet if you want to be able to converse with others about various subjects you need to know what you are talking about and how to express yourself with little pre - thought in response to how others may respond. Social interaction has intellectual demands. You will be required to remember names, locations, relationships, experiences, events, etc... quickly and accurately.

This is why commissioned sales and managerial jobs tend to be higher paid jobs (ie: real estate agents, etc...). People in sales not only need to know their product well they need to be able to answer questions on demand and often to those that know very little. Knowing how to express yourself is important. Managers need to interact with the public, the press, and employees and they need to know how to answer questions in various contexts. All of these things are intellectually demanding.

and having a wide array of people you interact with will help you think more broadly and be able to do so on the fly.

Re:Disagree

[__aaclcg7560]

People in sales not only need to know their product well they need to be able to answer questions on demand and often to those that know very little.

You forgot the part about sales people being pathological liars. I had a friend who sat next to me when he did a sales call. Told the other person on the phone that he was married (lie #1), had two kids (lie #2), owned a big house (lie #3), and, he then grabbed my leg, that his wife was sitting next to him (lie #4). We stopped being friends after that.

Re:Disagree

[nukenerd]

if you want to be able to converse with others about various subjects you need to know what you are talking about ......... You will be required to remember names, locations, relationships, experiences, events, etc... quickly and accurately.

The extroverts I have come across make up their "general knowledge" as they go along, and mostly get away with it because they sound plausible to those who know nothing. Politicians are a good example : when one of them starts spouting about a subject I happen to know about it is obvious BS, yet their many admirers lap it up like it is coming down from Mount Sinai. The second part of your statement however, remembering names etc of those in their circle, is more accurate however, and extroverts are good at it.

Re:Disagree

[david_thornley]

People with people skills tend to get paid more because they can manipulate those who control the paychecks better. No need to make up stories about it.

Re:Smart people more likely working on their hobby

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart people don't confuse then and than, you fucking gobshite.

From the Brookings Institution...

[Anonymous Coward]

A well known propaganda think-tank, linked to tobacco industry lobbying, and the general right-wing think tank network spewing forth bullshít.

The angle on this article? "Society isn't becoming more insular, you're just smarter than everyone else! Keep putting your intelligence to use by working harder, and forget about having any time for a social life - it's better for you!"

Don't like seeing this kind of shíte creep through on Slashdot.

Satoshi Kanazawa

[Anonymous Coward]

The study was done by Satoshi Kanazawa, so take it with a grain of salt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"...his critics claim that what he does is 'bad science'[3] and 'racist.'[4]"

"In response to ongoing controversy over views such as that African countries suffer chronic poverty and illness because their people have lower IQs and that black women are objectively less attractive than other races, he was dismissed from writing for Psychology Today. His employer – the London School of Economics – prohibited him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed outlets for 12 months, and a group of 68 evolutionary psychologists issued an open letter titled 'Kanazawa's bad science does not represent evolutionary psychology', and an article was published by 35 on the same theme."

Re:Satoshi Kanazawa

[nukenerd]

The study was done by Satoshi Kanazawa, so take it with a grain of salt:

That is an ad hominem attack. Attack his arguments if you think they are wrong, or just say nothing..

Re:Satoshi Kanazawa

[Anonymous Coward]

Suck a dick. People have the right to say what they want, you pretentious bell-end.

Re:Satoshi Kanazawa

[careysub]

From Wikipedia: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized. Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact...

Pointing out the credibility of the source as a potential cause of concern is in no way fallacious.

Misleading Headline

[jon3k]

Study is 18-28 year olds with self reported levels of happiness.

Re:Misleading Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'm curious. What else would you measure happiness by than self-reporting?

Re: Smart people more likely working on their hobb

[Type44Q]

Smart people don't confuse intelligence with knowledge; I know *many* idiots who're well aware of the grammatical differences between "then" and "than" but otherwise couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag. Alternatively, I've met some pretty smart sons of bitches who simply never had the opportunity to learn the distinction between two identical-sounding words. However, none of the smart people i know (including a fair few Brits and other Commonwealth folks) have the word "gobshite" in their vocabulary...

Re: Smart people more likely working on their hobb

[Anonymous Coward]

Capital "I", shitegobbler.

Friends?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. Friends take away from my KSP time. I don't need friends until they get a good multiplayer KSP.

Sorry Slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't want to hang around you because you are smart, they don't want to hang around you because you are an asshole. If you were actually smart, you'd know the difference.

Re: Smart people more likely working on their hobb

[Anonymous Coward]

You got it. Who wants to waste their time
dealing with idiots.

Or just keep our mouths shut around the dumb ones.

[Lumpy]

I find I have three circles of friends. inner is people I can talk about anything with, middle I can stay smart around, outer, I just nod and smile when they say stupid shit. Just let them be wrong and smile, it's not worth correcting them. Just hand them another budwiser while they make fun of your fancy pants dark beer.

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull. Smart people as just as likely to piss away their time on this earth as the rest.
Having fewer friends probably comes form being barely tolerable person. Just look at the comments here. People dicking around in Slashdot are probably on the smarter side of the bell curve, have few friends, and contribute fuck all to the world.

Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

And I though economics researches were all about cash. :/

Oh BTW I'm a scientist, and fuck You Facebook is my thesis.

... but with the advent of the social media ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the #1 objective for those who frequent FB is to have as many 'friends' as they could possibly gather ...
 
how dare you call those folks 'brainless' !!

Boring conversation anyway....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, picture this. You are a very intelligent person. You have some set of fields that you are really, really into. For this discussion, it doesn't really matter what they are or how "cerebral" or "topical" or "mainstream" or "whatever" they are or aren't. Whatever they are, you dig into them, think deeply about them, master them, maybe even obsess about some of them. You love to talk shop about them, given an opportunity with a mutually interested audience. Even when it comes to stuff you don't know much about and aren't really into, you still love learning new things and usually don't mind picking up at least basic knowledge on things you haven't encountered before. Maybe one of those things will turn into a new hobby or passion, or maybe you'll just file it away and move on.

Now walk into a room full of people that simply exist. They pass their days with bread and circuses. They seem almost pathologically incapable of independent thought or critical analysis and take anything their preferred talking head or celebrity on TV says as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They have no patience for details, no time to consider any thing outside the immediate present, no interest in learning anything beyond the bare minimum they have to know to not die, and no concept whatsoever of the forces at play, both scientific and sociopolitical, that shape their lives and the world around them. They possess neither understanding nor any desire to understand. They simply drift along dimly whichever way the current takes them and truly cannot fathom why anyone else would bother knowing or doing. Any attempt to communicate them or assist them will be met with resentment for disturbing their ignorance.

Interacting with such people will only be a miserable experience for the both of you, so why not confine your circle of friends to only those bright sparks in the darkness that can provide mutually beneficial fellowship?

Re: Boring conversation anyway....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because most people actually do have something interesting to talk about, if you weren't such a cunt. Find out what THEIR passions are.

Re: Boring conversation anyway....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because most people actually do have something interesting to talk about, if you weren't such a cunt. Find out what THEIR passions are.

It seemed like the original poster was implying that whoever they were talking about had no passions. At all.

Re: Smart people more likely working on their hobb

[Archtech]

Most intelligent people soon learn that knowledge is useful, so they tend to learn as much as they can. Not all, but most.

On the other hand, people who know a lot are not necessarily intelligent.

Contempt

[JimSadler]

It is quite easy to start seeing lesser folk as idiotic, or even a roadblock to a better world. You may also not understand at all why they enjoy many things making you sort of a wet blanket in their eyes.

Combining

[justthinkit]

Smart people can read people, and choose not to waste time with those who have little or nothing to offer; and/or those who are jealous or controlling. This naturally dictates a small circle of friends.

Also, there are only so many interesting things going on in life. Hanging out with more people doesn't make life more interesting. It merely dilutes the interesting stuff.

Good grief....

[fatmal]

I must be smarter than I thought!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Or just keep our mouths shut around the dumb o

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, similar. Inner friends who will drink anything, middle who have a drink hangup or two, and just nod and smile at smug beer elitist cunts.

Friends, Socializing, I don't grok!

[Anonymous Coward]

???

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Or just keep our mouths shut around the dumb o

[Anonymous Coward]

Lookie here, we got a bud light drinker!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Sampling bias

[Ungrounded Lightning]

To stereotype mercilessly, most Americans are seen as energetic, conscientious, achievement-oriented team workers.

And how are stereotypes formed?
  - Peoples' personal experiences with the subjects of the stereotype, followed by their communicating about it.
  - Media presentations.

And what sort of sampling bias does this introduce?
  - Extroerts will be out interacting with others and going to other places while introverts are tooling away in private or small groups.
  - Media production is a quintesentially extrovert activity and its personnel - especially those making the decisions about what to portray and how to portray it - tend to be outliers on the extrovert end of the scale.

It's something like how the post-WW II stereotypes for Germans, British, Americans, and Japanese, look substantially more like the distinctions between the symptoms of the different performance-enhancing drugs fed to the various armies than distinctions between their national cultures at the time. If the experience of a few hundred thousand people from your country with those from another are mainly from interacting with doped-up soldiers in battle, soldiers with varying personalities and from different subcultures, but all on the same dope, it's easy to read the dope's common symptoms as the nature of the country's culture.

I agree completely

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if your IQ is 160. Hanging around with the average person is the equivalent of you hanging around with someone who has a 50 IQ - severely retarded. It's not fun I tell you.

Be fool

[BlackBindy]

I'd rather be stupid, and have a lot of friends

Re:Be fool

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather be stupid, and have a lot of friends

Sounds like you have that well in hand.

Re: Smart people more likely working on their hobb

[oddtodd]

Forgive me, I don't get out much, but when I saw the word "gobshite" I automatically assumed the poster was from England or at least somewhere in the UK, am I a racist?

Intelligence is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligence is overrated

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Research suggests

[Anonymous Coward]

...that nerds like doing nerdy things better than not nerdy things.

smart people with fewer friends may be happier

[Anonymous Coward]

because most of those friends would not be as smart as them and take too much time to bring up to speed whenever they try to have a conversation.

No Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit, I don't have a lot of friends because I don't have that high a tolerance for stupidity and ignorance.

And yes I am a hostile asshole because I'm actually paying attention to what's going on in the world. I know that the people who are fucking things up the most are actually doing the best job they can do and sincerely doing what their deluded little hearts are telling them to do.

So, fuck all-y'all

Do the math.

[indi0144]

Statistically, theres less people in the side of the bell of what you would call "intelligent" then the whole mass of people that will be around you on average, is probabilistically hard to find those people on which you can form real meaningful relations also when there is this "filter" of your intelligence checking on the ports of the human in front, it gets old, quick. I really admire people that being intelligent manage to be extrovert without the context or field of work demanding it. I would not say being by yourself improves your chances of success, me, being an introvert, I just mind having a decent SO who can provide all the levels of interaction I might need, and sometimes just one person gets to be too much. happiness\loneliness It's a spectrum! like almost any physiological trait but that will never stop psychologists (which I respect) to try to create all those little lockers where they classify people and their states of mind.

Being content is happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

When wants > needs then happiness is unobtainable
When selfish ambition > selflessness then happiness is unobtainable
When you need to continuously rebalance work/life then happiness is unobtainable
When you miss out on more and more of your kid(s) firsts then happiness is unobtainable
When you search for ways to cram more into a day then happiness is unobtainable

Re: Smart people more likely working on their hob

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a nationalist!

Re:Smart people more likely working on their hobby

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that my best friends are the ones I can relate to. Since there's not a lot of 3D artists (relative to the norm in day to day life, not the industry), programmers, engineers, science geeks, philosophical types, or artists in general, there's not a lot of opportunity to make really good friends. When I make a friend like this, its rare for both of us and we hit it off right away.

Incidentally the one asking me to hang out all the time is the one who does nothing but play video games. Also, turns out you can't make people interested in game development just because they really really like games. In fact it might be an impediment...

Re: Smart people more likely working on their hobb

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you sure as shit haven't been working on learning the difference between the words "then" and "than."

no comment

[martinfb]

busy right now ;)

Spend less time on your social network?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I have to tell friends who are nerds to socialize. I tell my kids to socialize. You may be smarter but you will be a lot more frustrated, less happy in many other ways and probably less successful financially if you don't socialize. This is one of the stupidest articles ever.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Marry me.

[martrootamm]

No, really :-)

(But I have too many flaws to be a good date in the first place, so.)

Re:Marry me.

[martrootamm]

The novelty wears off in all relationships. The trick is to stay together after the novelty has worn off.

Re:Marry me.

[martrootamm]

I don't want to become a U.S. citizen. FATCA and stuff, potentially hundreds of pages of tax filings, etc.

Re:Marry me.

[martrootamm]

It was tongue-in-cheek, but your self-description appealed to me so much. But hey, _you_ can renounce :-)

Logistics

[martrootamm]

The thing about Hitler was, that the Germans failed at logistics.

Your argument is correct, that the Gerries went so far, that they overextended their supply lines, but they â" or Hitler, rather â" probably did not expect the land mass between Eastern Europe and Moscow to be a total swamp, with all their then-high-tech land-based gear built for traversable roads, and manpower equipped alike, continuously failing.

The success of having taken Easten Europe and a number of other territories so easily most likely contributed to Hitler's overconfidence.

But here's a problem: Had Germany instead taken all of Eastern Europe except Russia, and held the line at that, then it seems difficult to me (at least) to think of what could have happened next.

One option could have been destroying or hampering all of Russia's supply lines siege-style to keep the Soviet Union weak. This would potentially have bought Nazi Germany precious time to keep up the fight well beyond 1945.

Of course, the losses of some of the populations so far extant in Europe would have been even greater (the Jews, the gays, the Gypsies, and all anti-Nazi resistance). Wernher von Braun would probably have gotten off with a German nuclear bomb. And that would have changed the geopolitical equation completely.

Another possibility is this: Were Russia proper not invaded by the Germans, Russia (aka the Soviet Union) would have been able to gather enough strength to conquer back some of the territories it had invaded and annexed in 1940. Well, it did so anyway in 1944.

OTOH, Germany's mission profile would then have been one of defense, yet its supply lines would not have been worn thin across the vastness of Russia.

I suppose, if Germany did not invade France and other countries to its west, it would have been in a better shape economically. The fight, then, would have been viewed as one between Germany and the Soviet Union, and the West would have sat and looked on. Alliances would have been different. (Unless, of course, such a West would have decided to gang-up on Germany much later into the conflict.)

The externality, though, would have been conflicts of even greater intensity on the battlefronts between Germany and the USSR. The absolute losers would have been the poor countries and peoples stuck between the two.

In many ways, it was like that in real life in WWII, but the difference would have been in greater conflict intensity concentrated across territories of overall lesser land mass.

A film suggestion

[martrootamm]

Given that you're interested about WWII, I'd like you to watch two Estonian films: "In the Crosswind" (Risttuules, 2014), and "1944" (2015).

Wikipedia links:
* In the Crosswind
* 1944

Re:A film suggestion

[KGIII]

Given the description, I think I've seen 1944 before. I want to say that I've come across the first one but declined because of the entirety was in a different language and I have to be in the mood for subtitles for the entire film. I am pretty lenient with subtitles. However, I can't do a whole documentary in subtitles. I will, but it is not preferred and there are many other good things to watch (some more than once).

That said, thank you. I will stuff your reply into a stash and look at it again when time allows. If I happen to remember it, I'll mention it. The USSR had some interesting ones and a bunch of nice ones have dropped since the fall of the iron curtain. Even the ones that have fallen since may have certain, shall we say, biases that one needs to be alert for.

At risk of sounding conspiratorial, I'd say the biases are greater and more specific since about the time that Putin came into power. I have no way to compile that data objectively. I have not compiled that data objectively. So, consider it an impression from an impressionable old fool. It's best to not take any stock in such impressions and examine them for yourself and draw your own conclusions. A list could be compiled if properly motivated.

Even odder, I'd suggest that many of the documentaries from outside of the old Soviet States also contain biases, biases a bit different than those from inside the old country. It sometimes makes me ponder if there's some sort of concerted effort, an effort to change views and memories. But, that's the blathering of an old fool, a codger, and should be safely ignored. It wouldn't mean much of anything, anyhow.

Re:A film suggestion

[martrootamm]

These two films are not documentaries, but actual feature productions that were filmed to be as historically accurate as possible.

"In the Crosswind" is based on the letters of a woman who, along with tens of thousands of other people from the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, was forcibly deported overnight to Siberia.

"1944" is based on a screenplay penned by a former soldier who served in Afghanistan (after 9/11), who is now a military historian.

Films concerning WWII can roughly be divided into two camps:
* those that come from countries that were formerly occupied by the Soviet Union, or which were its satellite states;
* and those from nowadays' Russia.

The former are made to preserve the memories of peoples who were occupied by the Soviet Union, and who now wish their memories of occupation to be preserved.

Re:A film suggestion

[KGIII]

Ah, okay. A quick look at Google says there's a few documentaries with 1944 in the title. One of which was what made me think I'd potentially seen it before. I'll have to give them a shot but, to be clear, I usually try to make it through anything I start. Sometimes, I just can't do it. I may leave it running but I won't be paying attention to it any more. I'll give them both a shot.

I was able to find 1944 at my favorite pirate stream site* but they do not appear to have a link to In the Crosswind on the site. In fact, when I search IMDb by the title I...

Wait a minute. You called it Risttuules in your original post. That shows up in IMDb and it looks like I may be able to find it elsewhere. Ha! Okay, I found it by that name. I should have checked that name first.

* My favorite pirate stream site is ZMovie. Seeing as you were kind enough to share two movies that you thought I might like, I shall share two of my favorite streaming sites. I prefer the former but that's not for any good reason except that it's the one that I found before Solar. Also, Solar doesn't seem to like being added as a custom search engine. I've not tried it in a while but it used to be that if you added it as a search engine then it would go in and get listed like one. It just would always time out, complain about redirecting too many times, error out on a strange disallowed referrer editor, or things like that. I suspect they've got a complicated and borderline retarded .htaccess file. But, without further ado:
http://www.zmovie.tw/
https://www.solarmovie.ph/

If you're into sports then:
http://www.streamsports.me/
http://www.vipbox.me/ (This one seems to have taken a turn for the worse. It still functioned with some work, or it did the last time I used it.

Anyhow, I've no idea how much I'll enjoy either of the two movies as they're not typically things that I enjoy. I'm almost always, with little variation, watching energy dense documentaries if I'm watching anything at all. Hopefully these will be nice and I will enjoy them. We'll have to see. I might get time to watch one tonight - I'm not sure. If not then I'll get to them both as soon as possible. You're free to follow-up via email if you're curious. Either way, thanks! They just might be something that I truly enjoy.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion