Is 'intelligence' a burden?

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm going to tread lightly here so please excuse my overuse of inverted commas ... ...understandibly, this in itself has a subjective definition. Generally speaking though in my experience, people who 'know more' tend to be the least 'happy'. This tends to lead me to a conclusion, that people who acquire knowledge alienate themselves from groups without it, particularly those groups who subscribe to the 'mass mentality'. Furthermore those who have the desire to pursue knowledge feel the need to pursue time consuming, expensive courses without guarantee of employment at the end of it. Other people do not have this problem.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 02, 2007 12:33 am
I'm going to tread lightly here so please excuse my overuse of inverted commas ... ...understandibly, this in itself has a subjective definition. Generally speaking though in my experience, people who 'know more' tend to be the least 'happy'. This tends to lead me to a conclusion, that people who acquire knowledge alienate themselves from groups without it, particularly those groups who subscribe to the 'mass mentality'. Furthermore those who have the desire to pursue knowledge feel the need to pursue time consuming, expensive courses without guarantee of employment at the end of it. Other people do not have this problem.
I would rather know everything, and be the most miserable man in the world, than know nothing and be blindly happy. Knowledge is power, and if Lovecraft has tought us anything, once we obtain *all* the knowledge, our lives will become infinantly better because we'll realise the truth of all things..

[Janus]

people who 'know more' tend to be the least 'happy'. This tends to lead me to a conclusion, that people who acquire knowledge alienate themselves from groups without it
It seems to me that it's mainly those who are extremely intelligent i.e. have genius level IQ's that suffer from these kinds of problems.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:56 am

people who 'know more' tend to be the least 'happy'. This tends to lead me to a conclusion, that people who acquire knowledge alienate themselves from groups without it
It seems to me that it's mainly those who are extremely intelligent i.e. have genius level IQ's that suffer from these kinds of problems.
They can't find good conversation in a group of people who're lesser than they are. It's simple really. If you're leaps and bounds smarter than someone, they can't hold a decent conversation with you.

Not to gloat, but I can relate.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Friedrich Nietzsche+June 02, 2007 03:00 am--> (Friedrich Nietzsche @ June 02, 2007 03:00 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 01:56 am

people who 'know more' tend to be the least 'happy'. This tends to lead me to a conclusion, that people who acquire knowledge alienate themselves from groups without it
It seems to me that it's mainly those who are extremely intelligent i.e. have genius level IQ's that suffer from these kinds of problems.
They can't find good conversation in a group of people who're lesser than they are. It's simple really. If you're leaps and bounds smarter than someone, they can't hold a decent conversation with you.

Not to gloat, but I can relate.[/b]
Why do you think your ability to talk about philosophy is superior to my ability to talk about football?

Sounds like the position of an elitist snob.

If a so-called genius can't manage a conversation amongst a group of "lesser" people that merely demonstrates the dysfunctional character of the so-called genius.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+June 02, 2007 08:58 am--> (Citizen Zero @ June 02, 2007 08:58 am)
Originally posted by Friedrich [email protected] 02, 2007 03:00 am

[email protected] 02, 2007 01:56 am

people who 'know more' tend to be the least 'happy'. This tends to lead me to a conclusion, that people who acquire knowledge alienate themselves from groups without it
It seems to me that it's mainly those who are extremely intelligent i.e. have genius level IQ's that suffer from these kinds of problems.
They can't find good conversation in a group of people who're lesser than they are. It's simple really. If you're leaps and bounds smarter than someone, they can't hold a decent conversation with you.

Not to gloat, but I can relate.
Why do you think your ability to talk about philosophy is superior to my ability to talk about football?

Sounds like the position of an elitist snob.

If a so-called genius can't manage a conversation amongst a group of "lesser" people that merely demonstrates the dysfunctional character of the so-called genius. [/b]
Was I ever refering to you? I was refering more to my general age-group. I'm 15. I hate sports, I loathe most things that people in my age-group are into(and I'm an anarchist who lives in the Deep South USA. That doesn't help). Bleh. I have no use for alot of people(and I should not!).

[darktidus]

Originally posted by Friedrich [email protected] 02, 2007 12:42 pm
Was I ever refering to you? I was refering more to my general age-group. I'm 15. I hate sports, I loathe most things that people in my age-group are into(and I'm an anarchist who lives in the Deep South USA. That doesn't help). Bleh. I have no use for alot of people(and I should not!).
By socialising though, and interacting in a positive way with the vast majority of your peers, you're able to intrigue them by sheer force of example. You do your political ideas justice when you put them into practice and so it's usually best not to alienate yourself. In that way you can seem less like a self-righteous recluse and more like a true believer in well-founded ideas.

[gilhyle]

The issue involves recognising that 'intelligence' can often impede the development of social skills. SOmeone once said that the true mark of intelligence is to be able to hide it. THats quite a challenge for the 'smart' folk.....try it - its tough. It requires you to focus your intelligence on understanding how people behave instead of expending it on an etheral realm where your distinctiveness is unchallenged and merely reassures you.

In the end there is bad news...no matter how smart you are you are still just a human living in a capitlalist society : without other people and that world you are nothing, engage or be wasted.

The division of labor provides a tempting option of going into some academic ivory tower and ignoring your own social skill deficit; but then you are just using academic knowledge to block out how little you know about yourself, how you impact on others, how you engage with others, how you do or do not achieve things in the world.

[anomee]

I would rather know everything, and be the most miserable man in the world, than know nothing and be blindly happy. Knowledge is power...

That's Pietzsche, Nietzsche... to twist an old bit of graffiti, there. And my sentiments exactly.


If a so-called genius can't manage a conversation amongst a group of "lesser" people that merely demonstrates the dysfunctional character of the so-called genius.

Yes. I agree.

To be able "walk with Kings but maintain the common touch," is probably actually a good thing... and useful as well... as a true genius should be aware... [hmmmm... at some point I realized it was impossible to word that particular sentence without the mention of the monarch or without making a value judgement.]


They can't find good conversation in a group of people who're lesser than they are. It's simple really. If you're leaps and bounds smarter than someone, they can't hold a decent conversation with you.

It depends on the subject of conversation, and besides genius or sub-genius [*g*] aside, sometimes it seems like it's hard to hold a "decent" conversation -- or any kind of conversation with anybody at all -- just depends on the day, the mood and the crowd whether they are highly intelligent or dumber than a box of rocks.

I can give you an example of what can be gained from conversations with people who are not as bright as one might be him or herself:

There was a boy I met one time, who was not very bright and so dullish that it was painful, but he was a decent kid and nice to a fault and I used to listen to him politely, often wishing he wouldn't go on about such mundane things, but they interested him and did no harm, so I listened sometimes letting my mind wander from what he was saying to thoughts tripped off in my own head by a word or a phrase he uttered.

So this one day, my thoughts were wandering miles from where we were standing and he had been droning on about his car, when these words broke through my consciousness and riveted me to the spot, so dumbfounded myself I couldn't shake it.

He said, "I like to go out driving in the rain and see the clouds crack open like eggs and watch the gray angels falling to earth."

I said: What?!

And he repeated it. I was speechless except for something I babbled out along the lines of: Oh, that must be so beautiful...

It said something like it was and resumed being himself.

That snatch of poetic prose, that incredible lightning bolt of beauty momentary parting the dull gray clouds of his consciousness, was justification to me for his whole existence.

It showed me that everybody ever born has a spark of something worthwhile in them, no matter how small...

Of course, many too many of them, it seems, tend to snuff that spark and go on to just become a hole in the earth's resources... no matter how intelligent they are! *L*

The point being that my own intelligence was improved by hearing that snippet of verbiage in conversation with someone not of the same level of intelligence...

And honestly I gave value for value by listening to him because I cared and by remembering and carrying his words and the memory of him, his own memory capability being insufficient to carry it for himself.


In the end there is bad news...no matter how smart you are you are still just a human living in a capitlalist society : without other people and that world you are nothing, engage or be wasted.

See, that's something that concerns me and I think about it a lot.

What if I can never find the most productive -- or truly productive -- places to engage or people with whom to engage?

And what if I can only find limited types of engagement -- good, but limited -- with a few people close to me -- for whom living, working, loving and surviving are the primary goals and motivations? Or who are not so strongly driven internally to be active in bringing about social change for a better world?

Maybe I shouldn't worry about it, become a swimmer of the Tao and go with the flow...

Nah... can't really quite see it...

Okay...

I know I am intelligent and within the context of being happy inside myself, I can be and am, within the context of being happy with myself, I can be and am for the most part, within the context of being happy in interaction with other people... eh, some days peanuts, some days shells...

But I cannot "be" for other people and sometimes I don't like the way the act or who they project that they are, Have to take what I get on that score and deal with it.

Happiness is relative in some ways, and if I were to have something stop the happiness I feel now, I still would have had more than the bulk of humanity and certainly enough for one lifetime and then some.

Of course, I'm not ready to throw in the towel and quit with a thanks-I've-had-mine, good luck with yours. *L*

In fact, I wouldn't mind staying here until the last person on earth was happy.

Whoooo... do I see the board lighting up with strings of these: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ????

I'm quite serious, tho' :mellow:

[Black Cross]

Intelligence is most definitely a burden, in certain contexts. I'm taking it as more intelligent than the norm. Taken this way, it is most definitely a burden. But anyone who is more intelligent than the norm should be proud to bear that burden. It has always been the intelligent that have been leaders, for better or for wose. i.e. che, marx, lenin. Though their ideas may be shunned by the majority, at first, it is their burden and, to me, responsibility to shed light on certain things like corruption of government and capitalism, in this case.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Friedrich Nietzsche+June 01, 2007 09:00 pm--> (Friedrich Nietzsche @ June 01, 2007 09:00 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 01:56 am

people who 'know more' tend to be the least 'happy'. This tends to lead me to a conclusion, that people who acquire knowledge alienate themselves from groups without it
It seems to me that it's mainly those who are extremely intelligent i.e. have genius level IQ's that suffer from these kinds of problems.
They can't find good conversation in a group of people who're lesser than they are. It's simple really. If you're leaps and bounds smarter than someone, they can't hold a decent conversation with you.

Not to gloat, but I can relate. [/b]
:rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

Nah, it is perfectly possible to be astonishingly intelligent and still quite happy.

Trust me, I know it from personal experience!

Luís Henrique

[redcannon]

well, i'd have to disagree with Luis there. The more you know about the world, the worse it seems to become. And while intelligence far outweighs happiness, I can't tell you about the countless hours I've spent wanting to be a NeoCon, just so I could be happy about the world. Just so I could say "Yes! We needed NATO in Asia and now we can have it! The US sphere of influence crumples all else, thank god!"

but, alas, I can't. Call it morals, call it intelligence. I just can't.

[funkmasterswede]

Yes, I would say that there is a burden in intellgence. Firstly, in my experience I find it very difficult to approach people and hold a good conversation with them; not because I know that they are less intelligent than me, but because if I have nothing to say to them, why would I speak? Their concerns seem irrelevant to me in many ways. I have difficulty taking interest in what others percieve as important. More or less, I feel that I have realized that my existence is so very insignificant that I have difficulty seeing personal issues and minute material issues as being interesting or relevant.

One other thing that I feel is a burden on the intelligent is a certain realization. This realization is simple and that is that during my existence I will hurt someone in some way. Humans cannot solely be altruistic without denying the tendency towards self preservation. So, we must exist egoistically at least to an extent, and realize that our egoism will hurt others, as resources are scarce. In western society we are so used to our luxurious lifestyle that when this realization comes, one will be torn. I guess it would fall under cognitive dissonance, being torn between an ideal and the preservation of a lifesyle that one has always known.

Knowledge of the world leads to a burden and a realization.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Friedrich [email protected] 02, 2007 02:00 am
They can't find good conversation in a group of people who're lesser than they are. It's simple really. If you're leaps and bounds smarter than someone, they can't hold a decent conversation with you.

Not to gloat, but I can relate.
If you are leaps and bounds smarter then you should be able to relate them on a level that both parties can tollerate. If you can't, then no matter what your gongs, medals, nobel prizes and IQ scores say, you are not necessarily that "intelligent."

I know personally that there is mostly likely an extra 100 IQ points on average per university friend when compared to those at "home." However if shit went down I know who I would rather have on my side, and fuck the test scores.

Intelligence as far as I am concerned is fairly useless beyond allowing you to function in your environment. That a certain group of people are removed from much compulsion during formative years and allowed to specialise is evident; it is our education system. In general it is those who are protected from the real world that can do best in this situation (although not always). Those that are removed are seldom as worldly or street smart...and say what you want but seeing a bump deal in the street is far more useful in most situations that calculus. It is also a transferable skill, and means that you are more likely to challenge a mechanic or computer tech when they try and bullshit you.

We do "need" to allow for a certain amount of specialisation. We do need to have certain people who can really engage their mind on a particular issue, but remember there is far less for that mind to deal with.

Some people will always be inclined towards specialisation, and some people will always be reflective and general. A society without a combination would fail. There is no real means of comparison.



Just quickly, and I don't think I will ever forget this; A while ago I was sat up having a smoke with a friend. He had been in Glaswegian childrens homes from 12, moved overseas and had a job and rent at 16, and was at this^ point managing a bar I worked at...

Anyway, we were having a conversation, and were talking about formal education (of which he has had little to non since 12). I always knew that there was a lot going on in his head, even though basic reading and writing/knowledge of sciences arts etc were basic at best. He asked what a square root was whilst we were chatting...and within 10 minutes he could calculate a square root to within 2 decimal places (another new one on him) for pretty much any number shy of 10000, and do it in seconds. He had none of the schooling, and didn't whine about it. He got on with shit, and was far more aware of life than almost anyone I have met of his age. On top of this he had a flair for numbers.

He would be written off by almost all as a waster, and to be honest most in his position ended up in jail or addicted to heroin. He did eventually get deported, but I still maintain he is one of the most intelligent people I have met, yet would undoubtedly be in the 5 "least smart" of those I know over 18.

So yeah fuck the amazingly intelligent, if they are then as has been mentioned they would almost certainly not want to advertise it. If they are in this world they can relate to it...yes it is nice to find someone "on your wavelength" every now and then, but that is not necessarily the company that it is best to keep.

[Mariam]

This tends to lead me to a conclusion, that people who acquire knowledge alienate themselves from groups without it, particularly those groups who subscribe to the 'mass mentality'

Its not like it is an option..alienation is forced on them..they (intellectuals or people with a great deal of knowledge) are unconsciously banished in some sense from their social enviornment..because they are different and probably others cannot understand nor appreciate that difference (and i've been thinking of this lately as i have to deal with this problem every now and then) it might be due of some kind of social conformity that rejects what is different because of the need of being related to a group and being accepted in it.

However those outcast, probably due to intellectual adaptation become aware of that alienation and its importance to the pursuit of knowledge , thus they started to cherish that alienation as it what probably was the eye opening experience that lead to that intellectual development.

One risk of that alienation is losing or preventing a natural development of social skills.


I would rather know everything, and be the most miserable man in the world, than know nothing and be blindly happy. Knowledge is power

I wouldn't have said better than that.
Nan et ipsa scientia potestas es.. Knowledge is power.
To me knowledge is the only legitimate weapon we ought to use.


It seems to me that it's mainly those who are extremely intelligent i.e. have genius level IQ's that suffer from these kinds of problems.

Not necessarily!


If a so-called genius can't manage a conversation amongst a group of "lesser" people that merely demonstrates the dysfunctional character of the so-called genius.

Therefore he is not genius at all..being genius would have to include social, emotional, and physical among other things that would make a well functioning human being on the whole.

Yeah i forgot to say it is a burden when you are not able to use that knowledge..it grows into a real pain in the ass.

[freedumb]

I wouldn't say intelligence is a burden, but ethics and compassion for other humans definately is.

Many intelligent people are in positions of power in the capitalist system. They would have a very good idea of the reality of the system, but would not care, or see no point in caring about existing structural injustices and inequalities.

Intelligence is neccessary for discerning reality from ideology, but that's all. After you have achieved that you have the choice of accepting the status quo, or choosing to do something about it.

This is where the burden comes in. If you choose to do something about it, you have to go against the grain, resist everything the media is telling you and forfeit the opportunity to gain considerable income. You have to ignore the things, like celebrity worship and sports, that your friends take interest in.

So intelligence isn't what makes life difficult for people in capitalism - it's the activism that results from the intelligence.

[RedKnight]

Ignorance is bliss. Which is why conservatives on average are happier than others..

[Don't Change Your Name]

I must point out some things about this. In first place, intelligence alone doesn't determine how people will end up...for example, it is not socially accepted for women to be intelligent - their role is meant to be that of a "mother", and most men would rather meet a girl who obeys him when he screams "show us your boobs" instead of an intellectual woman who would have other ambitions and perhaps different desires when it comes to relationships, which means that what society expects about women can bring certain consequences that might not happen to men. If an intelligent person happens to be shy or socially awkward or so (and to make things worse, not particularly attractive physically), then that person will have problems simply because he/she will be too out of touch with most people and be rejected or fear being rejected anyway and the consequences of their intelligence might lead them to voluntary isolation, or will seem as "losers" (or consider themselves like that and therefore becoming that in the eyes of most people).

Of course, being "intelligent" is not the same as having knowledge or imagination or, say, a good notion of art but it is related. The societies we live in turn people into zombies who get prepared to produce, consume, obey, breed and die so intelligence is only useful in certain occassions (there are also different forms of "intelligence" as well as intelligent people with different interests, so an interest on certain field of "human knowledge" can turn you into a professor in a university or get recognition eventually while being interested in others, while requiring intelligence, might get you nowhere because the economical and social organization doesn't really promote such things...and an intelligent person could also tend to become cynical after a while, which could mean that they won't try to achieve anything or be happy since they will know a reason why it pointless anyway). Also, the spectacle prefers emotions to reason and image over talent, and a good patriotic slogan over a discussion over the logical fallacies it could include, amongst other things.

[Outmoded]

[personal opinion]

I believe that we could classify two distinct groups of 'intelligent' people, those who find themselves above the normal station of society, whether in a social or more tangible respect, thus inducing a sense of despair and isolation, and those who use their intellect to manipulate the situation created in the first example to their own ends.

For example, in the first category, say a respected engineer works for a mass transit network. The rest of the board are hell-bent on making rash, careless descisions, running their network with scarecely enough time to repair, update and maintain equipment. I this specific area, the engineer could be considered the more intelligent, and in this case rightly so. He alone can see that the current course of action will only lead to a catastrophic failure further down the line, but is powerless to act, as he in the minority. Thus, he is isolated, despite being the intellectual peer, he is overwhelmed by conflicting motives, regardless of their nature.

In a rough comparison to a Democratic system, the intellectual knows who to vote for, but only has one vote, thus rendering his choice at best a minor contribution, and at worst a complete non-starter.

Now, to return to the example I used previously, what if the engineer was the second type of intellectual? Instead of making a racket about downshifts and flanges and other assorted technical jargon, the engineer takes a select few members of the board who carry the most weight influentially and explain, in terms they understand (ie: Money) that it would be a more profitable descision to take on board his plan to keep the business afloat. Thus, he is able to tilt the balance in his favour, because he not only uses his intellect to identify and solve tasks, but also to go about creating a resolution via uneducated or inexperienced colleagues.

This is esentially the role of a canvasser, walking from door to door, using charisma, technique and most importantly, breaking down policy into terms and scenarios that the target can digest. This intellectual may have one vote, but they also have the potential to cast many more indirectly, simply through manipulation and planning.

I'm not specifically saying that the latter are a particularly 'bad' form of intellectual, indeed, I believe that these are the probably the biggest contributors to society as a whole, but there is that potential for dubious deeds.

That's my two pen'worth. Ta-ra.

[/personal opinion]

[Karl Marx's Camel]

[Ignorance is bliss.] Which is why conservatives on average are happier than others..

Just an assumption? According to polls I have read conservatives have a tendency to be more unhappy than others.

[Mariam]

for example, it is not socially accepted for women to be intelligent - their role is meant to be that of a "mother", and most men would rather meet a girl who obeys him when he screams "show us your boobs" instead of an intellectual woman who would have other ambitions and perhaps different desires when it comes to relationships, which means that what society expects about women can bring certain consequences that might not happen to men.

And thus spake El Infiltr(A)do!!
It is shockingly true... a lot of men still have that old mental set that says: "learning would un-sex women"
And that is only basic learning..and not yet a state of intellectuality!
womens with brains in some cases are not even viewed as women, they are always looked at with some sort of doubt in their sexual orientation or even thinking that they might have some sort of biological deformity..


The societies we live in turn people into zombies who get prepared to produce, consume, obey, breed and die

And in return that society would reject whatever that does not go along the mainstream, and that is brainy intellectual people thus treating that minority as freaks, retarded, or building castles in the sky!

Now if i may ask if we assumed that the alienating of intellectuals is not their option, do they have to accept that outcasting and play the role of observers-only or should they find their way back into the rejecting environment hoping that they might be able to change it, or would it be easier to detach themselves once and for all from that rejecting environment?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mariam, I do hope you realise that El Infiltr(A)do was not endorsing that opinion of women!!

He'd be off to OI before you could say "show us your tiny d***!" if he were.... :angry:

[Mariam]

Mariam, I do hope you realise that El Infiltr(A)do was not endorsing that opinion of women!!

Never thought of it this way!

[Not entirely illiterate]

What you're mainly referring to, in my opinion here, is knowledge, and it is a vastly different thing from intelligence.

Knowledge in itself is neutral, it is a little bit like pollen emanating from a flower, spreading vastly in the wind. Everyone who decides to stand up and breathe the wind will receive the pollen. Some will fail to notice the pollen and only feel the wind soaring into their nostrils, while some will experience an allergic reaction (quite unpleasant, believe me).

Still, the only true way for the pollen to come to good use is not to pick it up at all; staying out of the wind and letting the pollen reach bloom somewhere. No matter how pleasant the breath could have been, surely the sight of a thousand blooming flowers across a field is better.

Here, one has successfully avoided to stick upon facts and instead savour the fruits of said knowledge, letting it come to bloom. That is intelligence to me.

[Le People]

I believe that intelligence leads to unhappiness because in all, you become councious of the world to greater degree than a less intelligent person. It doesn't matter if one is situated in society or not; he or she will still be miserable. Let's isolate an intelligent man and he will still house some misery because he will fret over various important questions, such as meaning to his existence. (which I at least think seperates the intelligent from the unintelligent. If one persues the question of meaning indepently of soceity and its instiutuions, then they, in my book are intelligent. However, if they just accept what the clergy says, then they are dolts.) In the end, the suffering man will run into the question of existence, for if he is suffering, he will ask why he is suffering, and that will inturn become a question of why he bothers to endure it. After all, he can kill himself. So, by hanging in there and not hanging himself, he must have a meaning. It goes for the despairing writer, the cycnical professor, and the starving proletarian.

[Faux Real]

What you're mainly referring to, in my opinion here, is knowledge, and it is a vastly different thing from intelligence.

I agree with Nei, and the rest of the thread.

When I had no idea about politics, economics, or capitalist society, I was ignorant as hell. I had a good "education" for someone growing up in the inner city, though always found myself dumbing myself down to talk to other people--mainly my so called friends. Eventually it occurred to me that none of us were really happy or had a real future just buying a bunch of mp3 players, cell phones, and everything else that was "in style". Up until then I was bliss, now though, obviously things are dramatically different.

Knowledge nor intellect are burdens, unless you don't use the gifts of each to their full potential. Sure, you could be depressed a lot but you could also be slaving yourself off without knowing it. Thusly is how we can help others begin that same "enlightened path".

[Mariam]

Knowledge nor intellect are burdens, unless you don't use the gifts of each to their full potential.

Not being able to utilize knowledge or intellect regardless of what is the preventing cause makes the burdens, and that what leads to depression and not the fact that one is intellectually superior to others.


Sure, you could be depressed a lot but you could also be slaving yourself off without knowing it

That's probably when one become psychologically inflated in which he does not act as himself but as someone outside himself which might exist or not.
So a doctor would act according to what the society thinks of a doctor, and so is the case of intellectuals, probably because of a stereotypical picture that portraits an intellectual as an alienated depressed individual an intellectual would try (methinks subconsciously) to fit into that social frame.

[Faux Real]

Knowledge nor intellect are burdens, unless you don't use the gifts of each to their full potential.
Not being able to utilize knowledge or intellect regardless of what is the preventing cause makes the burdens, and that what leads to depression and not the fact that one is intellectually superior to others.

Oh yes, that is the cause of the depression. Still, I think having the edge of either knowledge or intellect is a good thing, as either emotionally down or up is well worth the emotional nightmare. Just gives all the more reason to feel human and not anti-societal.


Sure, you could be depressed a lot but you could also be slaving yourself off without knowing it
That's probably when one become psychologically inflated in which he does not act as himself but as someone outside himself which might exist or not.
So a doctor would act according to what the society thinks of a doctor, and so is the case of intellectuals, probably because of a stereotypical picture that portraits an intellectual as an alienated depressed individual an intellectual would try (methinks subconsciously) to fit into that social frame.

Many of them can be and it is detrimental to them getting their certain ideas and information out as they are seen as crazies. But can the individual and/or also become alienated by the external structure blocking them and their companions from utilizing their knowledge?

[anti_fa01]

Really...how often do you hear about mentally retarded people committing suicide ....ignorance is bliss

[Hit The North]

I doubt there's any empirical evidence linking suicide with intellect.

The vast majority of intellectuals do not commit suicide.

[Mariam]

But can the individual and/or also become alienated by the external structure blocking them and their companions from utilizing their knowledge?

Personally i think its the external structure that prevents them from utilizing that knowledge.I don't think that an intellectual would personally chose to withdraw his knowledge from being used for public benefit, if so than this is the tragic flow of intellectuals: arrogance.

[Ol' Dirty]

Generally speaking though in my experience, people who 'know more' tend to be the least 'happy'.

Is there any proof of that, per chance?

[Mariam]

Is there any proof of that, per chance?

Creativity & Mental illness (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/01-creativity.html)

Only the bright commit suicide (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article996719.ece)

Suicidal tendencies (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/03/20/suicidal_tendencies/)

Not that i agree with everything those articles mentioned, but thought you might find them interesting in drawing a connection between intelligence and suicidal tendencies.