Slashdot Mirror
Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders (scientificamerican.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Scientific American: Intelligence makes for better leaders -- from undergraduates to executives to presidents -- according to multiple studies. It certainly makes sense that handling a market shift or legislative logjam requires cognitive oomph. But new research on leadership suggests that, at a certain point, having a higher IQ stops helping and starts hurting. The researchers looked at 379 male and female business leaders in 30 countries, across fields that included banking, retail and technology. The managers took IQ tests (an imperfect but robust predictor of performance in many areas), and each was rated on leadership style and effectiveness by an average of eight co-workers. IQ positively correlated with ratings of leader effectiveness, strategy formation, vision and several other characteristics -- up to a point. The ratings peaked at an IQ of around 120, which is higher than roughly 80 percent of office workers. Beyond that, the ratings declined. The researchers suggest the "ideal" IQ could be higher or lower in various fields, depending on whether technical versus social skills are more valued in a given work culture. The study's lead author, John Antonakis, a psychologist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, suggests leaders should use their intelligence to generate creative metaphors that will persuade and inspire others -- the way former U.S. President Barack Obama did. "I think the only way a smart person can signal their intelligence appropriately and still connect with the people," Antonakis says, "is to speak in charismatic ways."
Idiocracy is officially here. President Camacho, here we come.
To a smart person with they see the world in a particular way. So when they try to explain themselves to the public they are talking above their comprehension. This is often insulting to the other person because it sounds like you are using your vocabulary and more advanced reasoning to show that you are better then them.
Someone else with a lower intelligence, works more off of instincts, which does have the advantage of making faster decisions which are more often then not correct. However to a higher IQ person this is just ignoring factors which should be addressed. And such reactions is insulting for not listening to the rational argument.
A high IQ person leading people with low IQ often creates conflict because the low IQ people just fail to see the big picture or know to follow the more abstract steps. They want right and wrong. Not careful balance of what is going on and actions based on situations.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
they can run the country with good 'ole fashion common sense. It doesn't help that it looks easy. After all, anyone can tell somebody else what to do, right? It's like writing. You learn to do it in grade school. How hard can this Shakespear stuff be, amiright? The trouble is it's scary to think that the problems of the world are too complex for you to understand and solve. Rather than face that fact and seek help a lot of folks deny it and try to force the world to conform the the reality they've chosen to believe in; with predictable results...
Also, a significant portion of the population really, really hates to feel talked down to; and, well, it's easy to rile these folks up, drive them to the polls and get them to vote you into office. Clinton (Bill) used to do it. When he talked to old people he dyed his hair gray. Young folks got a brown dye. And his southern drawl pretty much vanished when he wasn't on the campaign in the South.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I wondered why so many people dislike a stable genius.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The difference between the average person (IQ 100) and and a legally retarded guy in a helmet (IQ 70) is the same as between a bright college guy (IQ 115) and a really dull witted convict (IQ 85) is the difference between a professor (IQ 130) and average guy. Maybe the gap becomes too big for the brainy prof to care about winning popularity contest?
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
Some people are dumb as shit and don't like you because they cannot comprehend the message you are attempting to convey.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Mitt Romney is one of the smartest presidential candidates this nation has ever seen, as well as a fundamentally decent human being. People tore him to bits over offhand comments and talked endlessly about his unforgivable sin of having - 30 years prior - taken his dog on vacation. (One New York Times columnist published no less than 86 columns talking about that incident, which seems like obsessive enough behavior to qualify for institutionalization.)
Donald Trump is one of the least intelligent presidential candidates this nation has ever seen. Blatant lies, boasts about sexual assault, and so on only served to feed his campaign. At least a third of the country is still really excited about having this "stable genius" lead them even though he clearly struggles to understand any of the issues a President faces.
Look at Churchill's speeches or FDR's fireside chats. Now look at Donald Trump's twitter stream (MY EYES! THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!). This is the evolution of civil discourse in just one lifetime.
I get that sometimes someone who speaks blunt falsehoods rather than complex truths can be seen as a "man of the people." I don't think this has to be so. I don't think this has been true in all cultures and at all times through human history. I don't know how we can overcome the anti-intellectual pressures that have been building in this country for 70 years, the politicization of journalism and education, the degeneration of political discourse at all levels into dick jokes and cursing, and so on. But if we don't find some way to overcome it our civilization will collapse.
I don't think it is a matter of appearing "too wise". I have known several people with IQs from 140 to 160, and while they were not Rainman, they all had some significant personality disorders. I think it is those socialization problems that keep many high IQers from being good leaders rather than just being "too smart".
The human brain is a balanced organ, and if too many neurons are devoted to doing well on an IQ test, then not enough are left over for things like empathy, and social skills.
I too, chose to be a one-percenter, and it has paid off.
Boy is it funny how none of the problems the commonfolk choose, affect my life at all!
I get taxbreaks all the time, yet the paupers keep whining about a couple thousand dollars out of pocket. That's just chump change, who even cares.
All these folks choose to work multiple gruelling minimum wage jobs and insist on paying way too much rent and then choose to be unable to afford food or healthcare or a proper Harvard education for their kids! Then they choose having no retirement or even a portfolio so instead they keep crowding the streets with their homeless smelly asses. Stupid shit I tell ya. They even drive cheap shitty cars and never wear Armani.
Losers. Everybody should just choose to be a billionaire, that would solve all the problems they complain about.
"IQ positively correlated with ratings of leader effectiveness...The ratings peaked at an IQ of around 120"
If two people have an IQ difference of more than 2 sigma (2 standard deviations, or about 30 IQ points), it becomes very difficult for them to communicate with each other effectively.
I would have this was pretty well-known and well accepted by now. TFA specifically looks at office workers of various types, so it's a good bet that the average worker will have an IQ in the 100-110 range. So a manager with an IQ of 120 is just enough smarter to do the job well, but not too smart to run into communications problems. A completely believable "sweet spot" for your typical office. But probably not for JPL or a construction site.
If you get beyond 2 sigmas: For anything more than small talk, the smart person feels like they have to "dumb down" everything they say, and even then it's hard to get across anything complex. Meanwhile the lower IQ person realizes that they're being "talked down to", that they are being seen as dumb, and they resent it.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
http://blogs.discovermagazine....
Learn to love Alaska
Multiple studies have been done on this phenomenon, and I am rather surprised that this is presented as "news".
The simple fact is that people generally do not accept "leaders" who have IQs more than about 20 points higher than their own. And the reason -- according to current theory -- is that they just don't understand how each other think.
This has shown to hold for IQs between about 70 and 160.
Someone with an IQ of 70 does not well understand someone of IQ 100, someone of IQ 90 does not well understand someone of IQ 120 and someone of 120 does not well understand someone with an IQ of 150.
There is a rather large body of study and evidence to support this. It is no great mystery.
Social skills, contrairily to popular believe, have nothing to do with IQ or EQ, but with teaching young people how to behave properly. And many don't learn over time with age to become better.
I learned to be more social due to martial arts. The 'concept' is very simple. You behave like everyone else expects you to behave and you are fully integrated.
Funny, that you bow now to your teacher, training partner or a picture at the wall, but felt humilated when your mother asked you to say hello to a visitor.
Anyway, I travel lately mostly in Asia, and in Europe mostly in Scandinavian or Romanic countries ... being simply polite gets you everywhere.
The stupid idea of 'freedom' and 'the others' have to 'cope with me' is the reason why people are blamed for having a bad EQ. They don't have a bad EQ ... they never learned or accepted to learn basic human behaviour.
Look at a group of apes in the morning ... all the young ones walk around and greet the old ones. In our world this is considered 'old fashioned'.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You could simply choose *not* to suffer under the administration. ISIS is all but defeated, jobs are coming back, taxes were reduced, many people are getting bonuses, North Korea is coming to the Olympics, and we're no longer in the TPP.
Not to mention, if you happen to live in Puerto Rico, free paper towels.
Who doesn't love free paper towels?
Mary: It's okay to be smarter than everybody else, but you can't go around pointing it out.
Sheldon: Why?
Mary: Because people don't like it!
Sorry for the quote. It's rare that BBT-quotes are on topic, so let me have that moment.
People don't dislike smart leaders. They dislike people that make them feel stupid. And with half of the people that's pretty easy to do if your intelligence is even just average. What they like is people that make them feel smart and superior. And that's easy to do for someone who comes across as an idiot.
That might have been true for Bush Jr., but not for Trump. Trump is an asshole, but he ain't stupid. He doesn't even fake being stupid. Then why does Trump "work"? Well, mostly because Hillary didn't, but even that's secondary. Trump offers easy answers to very complicated question. Answers that can be understood by anyone, and as long as nobody questions them or even has to implement them, that's fine.
Unfortunately that only gets you so far. That's basically what fell the Soviet Union. Lots of rhetoric but very little substance in the end, and the smokescreen of martial words and promises eventually evaporates.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nope.. I'm afraid that thinkwaitfast was correct. It's a republic (a representative one) rather than a democracy - at least in the technical sense. Two things keep it from being a democracy:
1. Not everyone has the right to vote.
2. There is a constitutional limit placed upon the majority will. As a result, the government representing the majority vote is unable to necessarily enact their will if doing so violates the constitution.
The differences are subtle, though, in modern democratic republics:
https://www.diffen.com/differe...
https://keydifferences.com/dif...
-- Gaxx