Response to Socratic Questions
1. Is being smart, in and of itself, enough of a reason to consider someone disabled?
No. Being smart also is not what we are discussing here. Being smart can be indicative of a few things:
1) Above average intelligence
2) A hard work ethic
There are many smart kids out there that do not fall into the category of having a “high IQ”.
2. Is being socially inept, in and of itself, enough of a reason to consider someone disabled?
I believe so. It makes it difficult to meet new people. Think of all the situations where social skills are necessary
to achieve a certain
goal: work, dating, family, friends, networking, and even going to the mall.
Social awkwardness can have devastating effects on a person’s life.
3. Does personality or IQ play more of a role in social awkwardness?
I would say both, largely because IQ plays a large role in personality, and for a multitude of reasons. Those with high IQs obviously use a
portion of their brain for their specific skill trait. Again, these are many different types of intelligent people out there – it is
not enough to just call them “smart”.
With so much of the brain occupied with their specific skill, it only makes sense that other areas of intelligence would be lacking. Some have poor
motor skills (it could be said that those with excellent motor skills are geniuses in their respected fields), or a low EQ, etc.
4. What exactly is the disability you are arguing for in relation to IQ alone?
Easy. I am arguing that those with high IQs, like those with low IQs, also need special attention in certain respective fields. Every person is
different, but as your IQ climbs, you will be lacking in other forms of intelligence.
It is unfortunate that there is not more work done to promote these people. People like Einstein, for instance, came up with so many ideas that were
not even understood until 50 years later. There were those who came up with “crazy” scientific theories that were mocked and laughed at who
turned out to be absolutely correct.
From the same source as earlier:
Dr. Leta Hollingsworth wrote a book about children she observed, all of whom had IQs above 180. The author of this article was quick to point out
that even though their IQs were high as children, by the time they reached adulthood, many of them were probably no more than above average. This is
simply due to adjustment to the level of intelligence of the society one is within. So, yes, eventually these children catch up in EQ, but at the
expense of their IQ.
She also came up with a theory about a communication range
. To sum it up, she believed that those with high IQs could not be effective leaders
because they were not able to communicate properly with ordinary individuals.
… generally speaking, a leadership pattern will not form--or it will break up--when a discrepancy of more than about 30 points of IQ comes to
exist between leader and led.
Fortunately, Dr. Hollingsworth has done much work in this field, since so many others feel that geniuses have it too good as it is. Her findings of
what the typical above-average
person has to deal with is shocking, but not unexpected.
First, those gifted with abilities have a difficult time focusing. I think almost anyone who is gifted or knows someone who is can vouch for that
theory. There are so many different options, so many different thoughts being processed, and so many different abilities that finding a route and
taking it can be nearly impossible.
Children who rise above 170 IQ are liable to regard school with indifference or with positive dislike, for they find nothing in the work to absorb
Along with the previous problems I mentioned, because of the wide range of options these people have, many gifted people end up never performing any
great tasks because they cannot focus on one thing long enough to accomplish it:
Some of them are lost to usefulness through spreading their available time and energy over such a wide array of projects that nothing can be
finished or done perfectly.
Another trend she noticed is that gifted people often try to relate to the average person in vein. This goes along with the whole EQ, leadership, and
relationship failures that many high IQ people have. They either accept that people cannot understand them, or they dumb themselves down so that
Of course, those who do NOT
dumb themselves down may end up lonely and bitter:
At the extremely high levels of 180 or 190 IQ, the problem of friendships is difficult indeed, and the younger the person the more difficult it
Again, with age, these problems become less evident due to joining societies of like-minded individuals, the tendency to lose IQ, and the fact that
people are always gaining EQ. This is the exact reason why those children with high IQs need to be viewed as having a social disability. We do not
want them dumbing themselves down, hiding their gift, or isolating themselves from society simply because we failed to recognize their intelligence
and inability to relate.
Even more shocking is what eventually happens to the child. Children cannot relate to them, older kids view them as too young, and adults view them
as children. They literally have no group to belong to. Because of this, they often isolate themselves, and of course, have to find ways to keep
themselves busy and “happy”. They form habits, often weird habits that will then carry into their adult life.
Well, they can do that, or the other typical thing children do: rebel. They feel rejected by everyone, so they reject authority right back. This is
why almost every group of rebellious kids has one extremely smart kid who has no business being there. It is a way of indentifying with peers, and it
So, what is Hollington’s theory about EQ vs IQ? Those with above-average intelligence can get along fine. Possibly with some difficulty, but they
are not so far away from their peers that they cannot earn respect. However, once the IQ level of around 155 is crossed, the gap of intelligence
becomes too far and problems begin to arise.
But those of 170 IQ and beyond are too intelligent to be understood by the general run of persons with whom they make contact. They are too
infrequent to find congenial companions. They have to contend with loneliness and personal isolation from their contemporaries throughout the period
of their immaturity. To what extent these patterns become fixed, we cannot yet tell.
I cannot speak for my opponent, nor the judges or readers, but I would say that not being able to find true companions due to over-intelligence, which
then in turn leads to loneliness and the forming of unusual habits, is definitely a disability
This leads me to my opponent’s argument that those with high intelligence are just on the other side of a coin flip from those with low
intelligence. I beg to differ.
You will not find many with low intelligence who find it difficult to concentrate on one task because they are too good at too many things. You will
not find many with low intelligence who cannot find companions because no one can relate to the things that they think about. You will not find many
with low intelligence who are forced to live in solitude as children and find ways to entertain themselves.
My opponent says:
Originally posted by skeptic1
They need a social circle of friends.
They need a loving and nurturing family.
They need training in social skills.
They need training in emotional displays and responses.
They need the chance to learn and grow and express their gifts.
They need what every other child needs. They are gifted.....not disabled.
I am glad my opponent and I agree. They do need a social circle of friends. How can they do this if we do not recognize their disability
relate to other ordinary kids? Do not let my opponent define disability either:
1. lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability; incapacity.
These kids do not have the mental ability or capacity
to form bonds with other kids because they are simply not on the same plane of
My opponent was also quick to point out that EQ changes with time, but IQ does not. I believe that to be completely false with respect to the IQ:
What this image shows is what happens to the average IQ with age. For instance, those with an average IQ of 170 or above as a child generally end up
scoring around 155.8 on the CMT-T at age 41. This occurs with all levels of IQ.
This is why, as adults, most with high IQs can begin to assimilate into society. If they can lose the previous habits they formed while in isolation,
raise their EQ up to levels close to normal, and work hard on relationships, their lowered IQ will permit them to begin having some relationships.
Again, however, their IQ may still be a bit too high for them to lead or for others to really understand them.
Socratic Question #1:
Would you say that the natural inability to think on the same level as most other people is a disability?
With this, I pass the ball to skeptic1. On my next post, I may dive into some of the more famous intellects and their quirkiness and awkwardness.