Not just intelligence. We can easily find reasons to feel that people should be shunned/excluded/shut out.

I think there was a posting here, a couple of days ago, about the pleasure folks get, from bullying members of an "outgroup." Heck, I had an exchange with someone on this very platform, earlier today, who ended up "going there" (I left them screeching into the void. It seemed to make them feel better). It's really quite difficult to resist getting drawn into that kind of stuff. Really visceral. Takes real effort to tear myself away.

It's very primitive. The desire to shun "other" is embedded into our BIOS. Difficult to counter. Also, the desire to fight, when we perceive that "other" is somehow encroaching on "our" turf.

I've had to do a lot of personal navel-gazing in the last couple of years. Had to face some rather unpleasant personal truths. I have had to let go of a lot of cherished little turd dolls that I've been clutching to my bosom.

Fortunately, I have a framework for that kind of work.

> It's really quite difficult to resist getting drawn into that kind of stuff.

Yes.

This took me back to my middle twenties and disengaging myself from an argument with someone who had parked blocking my driveway. As I was discussing it later with the friend I was renting the apartment from, I said pretty much those words, "it's hard not letting yourself be drawn into someone else's anger." He agreed and we had a pretty good conversation about that.

Nothing to add other than you reminded me of an interesting afternoon long ago :-)

> be kind to less intelligent people -- the world is already not so kind to them.

This feels weirdly patronizing. Why not just treat every person with humanity and respect and be kind to them regardless of any particular trait or lack thereof?

I see it as more of a reminder and to pay attention. We all have ranges/spectrums at which we operate. You can say, "shouldn't you just be kind to everyone", and the answer is, "yes, of course". But then, how that kindness is shaped and applied – for example, kindness can be offering help, or waiting to be asked for help (but being prepared to help). I think it's ultimately about awareness of how you can be kind in different ways.

For those that are deemed less intelligent, that kindness can take the shape of increased patience with things that seem obvious or easy to others, whereas for folks operating at a level more similar to you, you might behave differently justifiably. This is just one example that crossed my mind in this case.

We understand that dealing with children and dealing with adults is frequently different, and we wouldn't call that patronizing, we'd call it operating at the level appropriate for them. We might tolerate something from a children, and deem acceptable for their level, while tolerating the same thing for an adult in the same context would be considered unacceptable. There are all kinds of different ways to behave differently in different context.

So, yes, "choose kindness", but I took the statement beyond its face value to mean "exert yourself to be kind" and find out what that means in the most appropriate way based on the situation.

It is not patronizing, unless any differential kindness whatsoever is patronizing. But this is clearly not the case : being overly kind to war refugees more than other immigrants is not patronizing, it's acceptance of the empirical fact that they are (with high probability) the least fortunate type of immigrants and a rational moral reaction to that fact. Similarly, being overly kind to your one friend who had just lost a family member is not patronizing. And so on. Off course you shouldn't appear to be more kind to them, because this is really just showing off\virtue signalling and it's insulting to them, but you should be more kind to them, without appearing to be so. It's difficult, but doable.

Less intelligent people lost a genetic lottery (like a lot of us with varying degrees), but the particular round they lost on is one of the worst, in practical terms. They deserve more kindness and help. No patronization in that.

This feels like an "all lives matter!" kind of response. The parent was specifically addressing the type of person who might be dismissive or unkind toward people of lower intelligence. Yes, there are people who are unkind toward all sorts of people, and that's not good either, but that's besides the point.

Also: we are all less intelligent than someone, so treat people right because soon it will be your turn.

Also, smart and stupid look much alike (in that both experience a state of few unsolved riddles). So beware.

Frankly, I think the desire (I want to crush somebody) comes first and the justification (he's a fool so it's only just that I crush him) comes second.

There is a prevailing contempt these days for less intelligent and less educated people, that is very unseemly and disheartening.

Such contempt is not unique to "these days". And for what it's worth, there is no less contempt for the educated, never mind the intelligent, among those subcultures who praise and harvest ignorance.

>Such contempt is not unique to "these days"

It certainly is among otherwise self-declared tolerant people. The Atlantic wrote a great piece a few years ago called 'The War on Stupid people', pointing out that in communities that have strict rules of conduct concerning just about any form of discrimination, you'll find people casually joking about 'darwin awards' when some stupid person dies a grueling death. Imagine you'd introduce one for obese people in a tolerant, young internet community.

Intelligence is increasingly conflated with human worth, and people who scoff at every form of inequality these days will gladly make an exception for intelligence, calling it meritocratic. The word itself is a good indicator of the change in attitude, given that Michael Young who coined it did so for satirical purposes, describing a future British society that is governed by an undemocratic elite selected through IQ tests.

No, I don’t buy it. What defines “smart” in those communities in the first place?

In the past our stories had "the wise fool" and "the noble pauper". We don't really do that now. All of our heros are rich, smart and beautiful. It's a crassification no doubt. Maybe a shift in the target demographic is to blame.

Is that the case? My experience is that many people am have less patience for people who are willfully ignorant and intentionally anti-intelligence and anti-progress. Given the political climate, at least in the US, would you blame them?

In my experience, I find people more understanding than ever about genuine medical issues and things that aren’t choices that someone has made - something they’re born with.

I think the two are very different.

I like to think that the gods mankind and corporations create, artilects, will see mentally disabled and geniuses the same way - it will only care whether or not they are good people, since their intelligence is incomparable to the artilect.

you might find thomas metzinger's concept of benevolent artifical antinatalism interesting

https://www.edge.org/conversation/thomas_metzinger-benevolen...

the singularity may put an end to all life because it doesn't suffer from the survival attachment which being the product of the darwinian process engenders

I prefer the quote from Vonnegut:

> God damn it, you've got to be kind.

Being kind to is not the exception you grant some special people, but what you are supposed to be by default.