That was hard to swallow. I think the next hard to swallow realization was that I’m not a very good person. I’m not mean to anyone, but I invest very little in actually doing good. I know I should, I have the resources to do it, but I’m still so self absorbed. I buy things I don’t need knowing the same money could literally save lives. I worry about my own security even though I could find a new job within a month.

I used to think I was a pretty nice guy until I realized how terrible I am at changing my behaviour to help other people. In all practicality I’m kind of an asshole. I’ll do better.

- My intellect is isolating me, but it's not my fault and it also is not the fault of people around me. Not any more than it is either my fault or the average person's fault that I need a stepstool in my kitchen since it's not designed for me. (I'm quite short). Being very intelligent is like being very tall in that it's falling to one side of the distribution curve and human society/life is going to be designed for the average person. As shitty a measure as IQ is, having a 140 IQ is kind of like being 7 and a half feet tall: Nothing is wrong with you, but good luck.

Basically, that my intellect is isolating not because I am superior to the other apes, but because any personal characteristic that puts me on one end of the bell curve when it comes to experiences is going to be isolating. I also feel very isolated due to my homosexuality and my MS, and in some similar ways: They all involve experiences that influence me in foundational ways that most people cannot understand and never will.

I thought I'd drop it in because I did have the 'oh my god, other people aren't the problem, I'm just an arrogant asshole!' moment in my 20s, but assuming my intellect was a non-factor in my ability to connect with others had its own problems. I corrected too far in the other direction ("stop thinking you're special/smarter than everyone else, that's just your arrogance talking") and it made me depressed because when I disagreed with most people around me/wanted different things, I assumed it was because I was the problem (as opposed to others).

It turns out none of us are a problem. We're just different.

By the way, some of the most valuable people in our societies are borderline horrible arrogant narcissists. I don't see people not using the knowledge that Isaac Newton shared with us, because he was a horrible person... I honestly think that if he saw a shrink and worked on "his issues" (by today's standards) he would have lobotomized himself.

Nietzsche had a good intuition about people that optimize for full manifestation of the self in reality, but was kind of naive what qualities these people would exhibit. It is the entire package, not only the "good parts" (by today's standards)

I'm a thief. I'm comfortable with that and feel no need to change. I can point out multiple situations where this was advantageous to me.

>By the way, some of the most valuable people in our societies are borderline horrible arrogant narcissists.

Nah, this is just the standard /r/iamverysmart drivel: you basically are so superior to everyone else that any interaction with the inferior masses leaves you so annoyed that you have to lash out like an asshole. Probably popularised by depictions of the """genius"" like Sheldon on Big Bang Theory, Zuck on Social Network, or that Steve Jobs flick.

In reality unless you truly are massively wealthy or influential nobody will stand for your bullshit. The most competent and intelligent people I've found are also nearly always the most humble and the best communicators.

You believe that it was necessary for him to be a dick in the pursuit of genius; I think the outcome of his "full manifestation of the self" meant that society benefited from 10 years of his singular effort and then lost out on the next 50 years because no one would work with him, and his peers actually laughed at him for his (entirely wrong) approach to the theory of what light is. Boyle and Hooke accused him of stealing their ideas on optics.

The fact Newton was an asshole, and people let him be an asshole, robbed us all of 80% of what he might have achieved if he'd been a bit nicer.

He rescued the Royal Society from bankrupcty and also worked with the best equipment makers of the day to improve experimental science.

At the Mint he was responsible for the gold content of the coinage and using science and design to limit counterfeits.

There was quite a bit more than "studying alchemy and the bible" because "no one would work with him."

You cannot go against your own nature. It requires too much energy and does not work, it lobotomizes you.

Also, suggesting it's OK to emulate Newton when you're not a genius is likely to have a worse outcome.

- People should not emulate anyone.

- People should emulate you. (Think about how fundamental the change from emulating to non-emulating is for all their talking/reading/thinking patterns. I don't see how else can you reboot your personality short of emulating someone.)

In reality, your way of being is shaped by your life learning, of which your way of relating to those around you is a part.

There are certain aspects of your personality, like "arrogance", that the society might find unacceptable. That doesn't mean that they are bad for you or that you can change them.

I don't know the history, so I won't speak to whether Newton was, in fact, a jerk.

But it is possible to recognize the asshole inside yourself and change. At least, I've been doing that in the past two years.

My life has been much harder as a result, but it's also clearly benefited both me and the people around me.

I don't know if there is any data/research on being successful or valuable requiring an arrogant narcissistic personality. I believe it doesn't. If anything, such people became successful despite having such difficult personalities.

It is not necessity for being successful or valuable, but it is undeniable that people like that exist throughout history.

At the most fundamental level: It is arrogant to believe that from purely biological point of view, an individual would posses qualities like "arrogant" that are of no possible value.

Societies need to believe certain things to function. You cannot have a society where each individual is like Isaac Newton. I'm sure that if you asked the people that were knew him, they would say that "one is more than enough..."

Why?

Creating a lot and getting a lot of attention are two different things.

My problem with the idea of being "arrogant and a self-absorbed asshole" is that it smells like identity. Taking on strong identity can be a problem, as we see with identity politics. I feel a better path through life is to keep identity small and be more creative on being adaptive.

As I said in another comment, the author is going into the party in a frame of "seeking intellectual conversation." Another person at the party may have attended in the frame of "seeking a hook-up." Both may have been similarly disappointed. A better approach is to be be creative and adaptable. We have forgot how to play.

I feel that having a default frame would be problem for me. Being adaptable is just more fun. Being arrogant may be effective in certain situations, but a problem for others. One of my favorite playgrounds is the British pub cultural thing of "taking the piss." That's where someone you're talking to at the bar just starts ripping into you. I LOVE that, and I usually surprise them at being better at it than they are. An arrogant frame in this situation would leave you wide open.

> I buy things I don’t need knowing the same money could literally save lives. I worry about my own security even though I could find a new job within a month.

These things are normal, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

But you are right that going through life thinking you are some lonely, tortured genius is not healthy and is a recipe for being a true asshole.

I've pitched this one before, as it is a short book (pdf, or audiobook) and is one of the most impactful things I've read in a long time. It was Peter Singer's book, The Life You Can Save [1]

The book methodically and non-judgmentally addresses many objections and false beliefs people have about charity [2] and effective altruism. In a nutshell: ideally we'd have enough resources that everyone had everything they need, but we don't. There is a strong instinct to care more about people who are similar to you or live near you than for others, but we shouldn't. That is, the suffering of a person you will never meet is just as real as the suffering of someone you are friends with. Because we have limited resources to help others, the resources we do have should be focused on those who are worst off.

[1] https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/peter-singer/

[2] For instance, many people moan about how much of the federal budget is spent/wasted on foreign aid. When asked to guess how much of the budget is spent, people (in the US) commonly guess 10-20%. When asked what they thing would be more appropriate, they commonly say 5-10%. The reality is it is well under 1%.

You may say, well, then help fixing the root cause. That’s right, but you have to find true one and fix it, and both is hard. Much easier to calm yourself by a donation to people who you prefer to believe to understand more.

One point is that when people have secure lives, the birth rate plummets. When your only capital is children, you make more children. By meeting the needs of the worst off, they have fewer children, not more.

I'm sure there were other points made, but I don't want to attempt to restate those from my shaky memory of what I read more than a year ago.

I know I should

This is a great opening to self-analysis. Whence do you know it? What’s the goal? What if you did something “good” whatever it means to you, what then? Imagine it, what’s different? Walking this graph of questioning every term may discover the true source of your unease, which may be completely unrelated to “being good”.

I know I should do better for other people because a) my success in life has depended on others to a large degree and b) I’m not doing much to help others succeed

I know I worry about my own security because I grew up quite poor and I struggle to imagine that things will still be secure tomorrow, or even by half way through the day

If I could overcome that I would likely feel more at ease and be better off for it. At the same time, I’d likely enjoy helping others with resources like time, wealth, and energy which I felt more secure to offer. I immensely enjoy opportunities to help others when I do allow myself to do it, and I believe I would continue to enjoy it if I did it more

Some of this is hypothetical, but I figured I’d outline my thinking so it seems less like I’m beating myself up for no reason. You’re right - without questioning or exploring the thoughts, I’d likely be pursuing the wrong thing or for the wrong reasons. I think several lines of questioning are how I got here though.

Having said that, I’m certain “being good” will never mean a singular thing and as I make efforts to enact change, more questions and more answers will put me on a different track. Absolutely.

For what it’s worth, a major source of the question and desire to do good or to be a better person came from reading and researching stoic philosophy. I don’t adhere to it or love all of it, but I do love the notion of living in accordance with nature. As a social animal, what are my duties to those around me? In all practicality, what is the best thing I can do for the people I have duties towards? As a dad, a friend, a neighbour. Something about that framing really resonates with me. Upon reading it years ago and letting it incubate, I came to realize I am fairly poor at fulfilling my duties.

I disagree, because I think you're not taking into account at what stage you are. You're realizing it would be better if ... , that's great. Nourish that, water that seed. Don't judge the sappling as if it was a big tree.

In my defence I think I’ve gotten better about it over time and have taken real steps to do better. It still bothers me quite a bit sometimes. I know I should do better.

Everyone is self-absorbed to some extent; it's an evolutionary trait that helps with our survival. Some will be self-absorbed in a narcissistic sense, others, as you've mentioned, with their security and position. Then there are those who are so completely self-absorbed with their ideas and interests—interests that have become so integral to and inseparable from their thinking that the way they think has shaped their identities. In essence, ideas have shaped and remolded their personalities in ways that let them think and dream of little else other than their principal interests.

I would suggest that if we examined the behaviors and inner personalities of many if not most of history's great illustrious thinkers such as famous scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and many others who we now revere and respect—then there's little doubt that we'd find many of them would easily be classified as self-absorbed assholes. Moreover, the term self-absorbed asshole would automatically apply to many by virtue of their very nature—and it would still apply irrespective of whether their interests are noteworthy or important and or whether their work actually possesses any real value or utility or not. Simply, one can be a self-absorbed asshole no matter what the intrinsic value of one's work is.

For instance, take Isaac Newton, who from various accounts was a rather nasty man and that's likely putting it mildly. Then there are true self-absorbed bastards like Fritz Haber the German chemist who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the Haber–Bosch process to synthesize ammonia from nitrogen that led to the large-scale production of fertilizers, this process has benefited many millions of people worldwide over the past century. Despite Haber's important discovery he nevertheless remains a self-absorbed asshole with his stripes as rotten as ever—just by virtue of the fact that he's also the Father of chemical warfare having overseen the 'weaponisation' of chlorine and other poisonous gases during World War I. Haber's virtuous discovery doesn't mitigate him in any way as from various accounts he was a truly nasty person.

Then there's Einstein. Can you imagine Einstein arriving at the patent office in Berne fresh off the very tram that he'd already envisioned as central to his thought experiment in relativity—only to confront his co-workers with those very ideas? I've no idea whether Einstein did so or not [he likely had more sense not to] but it's easy to imagine that he did and that his co-workers quickly offered excuses then exited his presence in great haste.

The fact is, one has to be self-absorbed in one's thoughts if one is to achieve anything worthwhile. Whilst there are notable exceptions, I'd respectfully suggest that for most people that it's not possible to integrate thought into concepts and cohesive ideas without being obsessively involved with them.

How one presents or hides this self-obsession to others in the outside world that is perhaps the main or most important issue. Being adept at handling one's obsessions in the presence of others and in social settings is a worthwhile trait, that's if you possess what it takes to do so. Unfortunately, not everyone does and the ones who don't are likely to end up with the 'asshole' moniker.

(For my own part, when I'm self-absorbed with a problem it's best others not be around me as they'll likely be ignored. At least nowadays I've some cognizance of my problem: for the women in my life have repeatedly pointed out that being male means I've only the limited capacity to think about one matter at a time. I now understand this.)

There are of course a few in the genius class who can be both totally self-absorbed in whatever interests them and who simultaneously seemingly run normal lives without any additional effort, it's as if they've two independent brains running in parallel. Names that spring immediately to mind are the likes of Mozart and Leonard Euler but there are many more. There are stories of Euler—likely the most prodigious and prolific mathematician in history—being totally absorbed and doing mathematics whilst his rowdy kids surrounded him, it seems that nothing ever distracted him). If I recall correctly, all up Euler had 13 kids. How he also managed to have ever had sufficient time for doing great mathematics remains one of the great imponderables.

Finally, we need to mention and separate out how great minds interact with one another when on matters of common interest. Such individuals often have obsessive interests that are so heightened that their psyches exclude them from considering almost everything else. It's not only a specific common interest that binds them but also it's the minutiae of detail within that interest, it's key—it's the very 'spice' of such interest. One can imagine being a fly on the wall in the heady day of the early 1900s listening to conversations between the likes of Einstein, Hilbert, Lorentz, Poincaré, Minkowski and others. That said, the fact that pockets self-absorbed assholes — assholes of such high and outstanding caliber occur with such rarity that they can be ignored for all practical purposes.

We fetishize intelligence too much as a society and too many don't understand what it really is and how it can differ. It's nice to imagine a world where we valued empathy as much as intelligence.

This isn't true. If you have a very popular website and take the most common threads people might read on it, then you will likely have at least a few hundred thousand people viewing it. If 1% of the smartest 2% comments you would have a maybe a hundred comments from people who would qualify for mensa if the viewers were random people, basically flooding the comment section.

The reason this works is that people will flock to threads that is about something relating to them. People who do well on IQ tests will flock to threads about intelligence etc.

Anyway, being smart without an education is pretty worthless as you say, but there is a lot of such people out there. Being uneducated doesn't mean they aren't intelligent, it just means that they didn't utilize their intelligence in life. I'm not sure why you would try to say that they aren't intelligent just because they lack education. If a study found that intelligent people face more boredom or whatever, then it is almost surely that the study was a correlation between IQ and some questionnaire result, so whatever score someone got on an IQ test is very relevant for the topic.

School would just provide a less-than-average knowledge, parents won't guide, and you get an uneducated kid surrounded by "idiots".

As a parent, you provide guidance to your kids, high IQ or not, you still get a large gap with their peers. Yesterday, we were drugging kids with TV, today, with tiktok and the likes.

No, because that once again assumes IQ tests are a relevant way to measure intelligence.

Wow...

Are those people who are smart, or those who think they are smart? Because those two groups tend not to overlap as much as one would think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

:)

On the flip side, I have found a startling amount of people genuinely don't have many passions / interests. Skills and talents, sure. But passions - no.

Or I guess if eating foods like cereal and McDoland's counts as a food passion, or watching TV, or working a job you don't actually enjoy - if these count as passions - then I suppose everyone does have interests.

I'm just not inclined to think people are really that passionate about these things - and instead, it's just what they do. Sure - anybody who spends 10 hours a day laying bricks - they're obviously infinitely more skilled in that and related things than someone who doesn't. But a lot of people simply exchange their time for money, and don't particularly love what they do. Most of us HN-ers do, and we forget how rare that is.

I think some of us on here forget how close we have it to a life of leisure compared to the average person (ESPECIALLY globally). I know a lot of people that pretty much have no time for anything besides work and family.

And I hope that all people like this LOVE at least their work or their family. But in reality, I know A LOT of people trapped in a life where they genuinely dislike both. And that's pretty much their whole life.

That'd describe Perell well. He doesn't have many passions/interest. He's bowing out of one interest to flee back into his singular comfort zone of unchallenged isolation, where no one "tests" his chops and he can fly on the wings of his self perception to whatever height he desires.

He shuns every passion/interest that does not align with his narrow view of which passions and interests make a person "intellectual". He's the kind of guy who will use his superior training as "guy who writes things on the Internet" to start arguing medicine with me, and then leave the party because few people share his interests and he just can't contribute to theirs. Because we're not as intellectual than him.

... in his narrowly defined niche of what makes a person intellectual.

Hint: being able to cite Plato does not make you in any way, shape, or form, more "intellectual" than the guy at the end of the bar who knows every Man U soccer game score, who scored, against whom, in which game, at what game time, using which strategy.

Having consumed a 500 page book does not make you more intellectual than having consumed 500 episodes of Coronation Street. Consumption, in general, is a low hanging fruit, intellectually. Your love for Doctor Who doesn't make you smarter than someone's fanning over Rihanna.

Intellectuals are rarely lonely. Because true intellectuals see value in information, no matter the sender or matter. Restrictive topic selection is pretty much the definition of anti-intellectualism, in my opinion.

> Having consumed a 500 page book does not make you more intellectual than having consumed 500 episodes of Coronation Street. Consumption, in general, is a low hanging fruit, intellectually. Your love for Doctor Who doesn't make you smarter than someone's fanning over Rihanna.

> Intellectuals are rarely lonely. Because true intellectuals see value in information, no matter the sender or matter. Restrictive topic selection is pretty much the definition of anti-intellectualism, in my opinion.

Big red flag anytime anyone prefixes something with "true." First you stubbornly deny what an intellectual is, then you redefine its meaning to suit your narrative, with your "true intellectual."

Every single time I dig deep to search for someone's passion, I find at least one, and often multiple. In general, I find way more than I initially expected when I was a teenager.

I have also found many people don't think it's socially acceptable to talk about their passion in many situations. This makes it hard to discover these passions when you have only casual interaction with people.

I think we need to be careful about setting unrealistic expectations for what is normal/desirable (you use the term "elitist" as if having a passion for something is only reserved for the social/economic elite). This echos back to job adverts looking for engineers with "passion" etc.

I would argue that a singular "passion" might actually be a negative trait as it can have a negative impact on other parts of your life (as illustrated by TFA). I'd certainly not want to work with or hang around with person from TFA as they sound like a prick (not much to judge them on I agree, but there you go)

It is 100% ok to just live your life. Interested by something different every few days/weeks/months/years? That is totally ok. Maybe you just like to live your life and enjoy leisure activities? That is totally ok too. Too busy for anything apart from work and family? Totally fine.

Another problem being that most people cannot handle disagreement. If you want to discuss an idea that often leads to disagreement. True intellectuals relish an opposing viewpoint, whereas the vast majority of people wonder why you're being an asshole. The fact that most people cannot handle respectful disagreement in search of a deeper understanding is a problem they have, but a burden placed on others.

And of course most people who would call themselves "intellectual" are actually in the latter category.

The distinction between the author and others is not the intellectual pursuit, but the dislike of parties. My bias is to think they’re attending parties with the wrong people, or of bad design (yes, design/engineering is something that social gatherings benefit from).

I like a good party plenty, but I’ve slipped away to read books, and I don’t consider myself to be a voracious reader of books.

Parties are also a little over-hyped, even a social construct, I would say (writing it down it actually sounds tautological).

On my country's local sub-reddit someone was asking people older than him how did they spend New Year's Eve parties in the past, which reminded me of the New Year's Days I used to spend with my grandparents in the countryside, in a village close to the Carpathians. There were no New Year's Eve parties in that village, or in the villages surrounding it, for that matter, young, unmarried, people would usually congregate on Saturday's evenings for a "village party" so that the boys would find girls to marry and that was pretty much it, once you were married and especially once you had kids of course that parties were not a thing anymore for you (why would have gone there? you were already married).

A little on the conspiracy-oriented side I would say that modern parties have been presented to us as the way we now know them ("you have to be there! you have to be seen as a likeable person! you have to talk and make conversation! you have to small almost at all times!") out of consumerist reasons, I would even that most of this whole "modern socialising thing" is backed-up by consumerist reasons.

People in the past did celebrated with friends and family, but it also involved drinking and music and general partying. Kids were generally present until they were sent to sleep.

There were taverns and pubs where people went to drink and be noisy too.

That is what I got from my grandparents and parents. And when I read memoirs (from wwii and such), people mentioned very party like a activities too.

Also, the tavern can only be a thing in a society that has cash/money, which also makes me think that a place like Western Europe would have the upper hand on this. Even going in the second part of the 20th century my grandparents’ village was trying to avoid money/cash as much as possible, work-days were often-times paid in other work-days, so to speak, i.e. “I help you out with that hay thing for three days you help me out in return with two days carring wood out of the forrest” or something like that.

Big parties did indeed also happen at weddings and after burials, the latter ones are called “parastas” and I think it has been directly taken from the antique Greco-Roman tradition.

Not to mention weddings, coming-of-age celebrations, and funerals/wakes, which date back well into prehistory.

Every village big enough to have church has also tavern. Usually close to each other. People drunk a lot, actually. They were poor a lot, but alcoholism was a thing and big social issue.

Paying in work or work for work was a think exactly as you described.

If anything, current western norms are significantly less social. People visit each other less often. You don't have drinking and talking till late while kids run around never at all. Especially as you get older. The way we live forces us isolate in middle age and lonely in old age.

- who to invite (complicated by melt/flakiness) - involves making predictions about how people will behave and interact with each other - how many to invite - when to start - when to end and how to end - what beverages, snacks, food to include; how such things will be prepared and delivered in sequence - drug and alcohol (also a drug) choices - what music to play - lighting and furniture arrangement; use of space generally - desired outcomes; things to watch for; connections to encourage or discourage - props, toys, games, and other objects (I suppose food and snacks are partially a subset) - compartmentalization and breakaway spaces

An example of a party that the author would likely enjoy would be an informal book club gathering with a mixer before or after, or perhaps a showing of a film adaptation with discussion for interested participants after, while less interested people can break off to play board games. Or perhaps board games would be stimulating enough, there are a broad range of kinds, and they can drastically change the feel/experience of an evening.

I suppose “engineering” implies a formal discipline. I think that actually is a profession, I just know nothing about it. But design thinking can be applied by anyone to anything, and I do try to be intentional and/or am slightly neurotic about hosting.

But to bring a different lens to the topic: to me, articles like this are about protesting the way social interactions are designed and blindly followed by many people, not signaling superiority.

So I don't read OP as "I'm better than anybody else", but as "There must be a better way of interacting with others and sharing interests. I dislike the current way".

The article resonated with me because I think the concept of "parties" is overhyped. I've done a lot in my life and yes, there's a good side to them. But there's also plenty of BS going on: power dynamics, shallow conversations, etc.

The problem is, parties are a sort of a sacred dogma to the vast majority of people. Friends and aquitances will often tease/insult you you for not going to them, or for going and not staying late enough.

I don't understand why the hype. Why are parties the "ultimate and only" way to have fun and interact socially for some people? There are dozens of other ways to interact with people.

For example, I rather have one to one catch-ups with friends because when you get small talk out of the way you can deep-dive into topics. Because of that, I'm an anti-social outcast for many people. "The weird guy that doesn't go to parties". I think that's what the article is on about: societal pressure to individuals so they interact in a certain way and bend to stablished norms, when such norms are not enjoyable for such individuals.

The thing is some people have trouble finding people close to their niche. The solution is search better and/or widen your niche.

There has got to be a better way of doing this... Too much "king of the hill" and "payola" mentality on communities that call themselves "fair and credible" these days, and the time/creator investment loss is huge if you consider time invested to achieve any level of credibility and/or voice on social sites.

I have found that my own (personal and business) web sites are usually the best place to post content, my opinions, and maintain user accounts I don't want to lose, and where I can build a far better/more reliable audience than I could ever do on social media and other community sites for over the past 5 years really.

I hope that type of individual web site culture and related indexing comes back. An app or web site that enables seamless integration of personally owned web sites into it in a socially integrated manner would be a much better long-term solution/idea for all social communities in my opinion. I'd develop something like that myself, but would need tons more funding and human resources beyond what I'm working with currently (of course).

Just as a computer that doesn't support HTTPS is functional yet un-networkable, so too can a person choose not to support the small talk protocol (or to offer only obsolete versions) thereby forcing the other participants to degrade or refuse the connection.

Everyone has things they're deeply interested in. If you want deep conversation you just have to muster curiosity about what they're into (and not fail the social capabilities portion of the protocol). Rarely you'll get really lucky and the person will share one of your niche interests, but it's an unreasonable expectation so don't make it your goal.

I'll explicitly highlight "appropriateness" as part of those social capabilities: participants balk at philosophizing in dance clubs or slasher flicks at funerals or topics that exclude or are obviously uninteresting to others in a multiparty conversation (since 3+ participants is common at parties).

Practicing the protocol makes it less draining (assuming that's what's actually draining you).

I have things I’m passionate about as well, and I enjoy a good book as much as the next guy, but I go to parties to relax, and talk shite to people.

"always"? On one side Reddit is known for its armchair experts to the point of being a cliche'.

Yet anti-intellectualism is widespread in many environments. The idea that people should only engage in gossip and idle conversations in a college party is a good example.

I sort of miss it, but I’m also happy with the conversations I have now, so meh?

TL;Dr - some people like to read books, some people like to do other things.