Kid genius

Asperger's /autism can be like that though. People with the disease are usually a lot more focused than "normal" people, hence a better understanding of some things.

I know. I have it.

I have made neither statement in whether it's a gift or a curse. Also, you already sound like a bigot. Sometimes the stupid have something profound to share too, be it ideas or their talents.

I'm under the impression that you think all Asperger people have issues with communication. That's not entirely true (but not entirely false either).

^ this so much.

Also, it'spossible for people who have Aspergers to not be able to read social ques at ALL, and then be able to. Aswas the case for myself. Ofcourse I only have a mild case of it so yea. My bigger issue is with my dysgraphia

The whole point I'm trying to make is advocating the development of metacognitive awareness, something that is, in my opinion, unbelievably essential for adult maturity and something of which too much of the world has little to no grasp. The idea here is that an individual is capable of recognizing the social attributes of their current location and community, and responding in kind to them so as to positively contribute to the overall composition of the group. In other words, a Nobel laureate walking into a Chicago inner-city school district to give a college-level parasitology lecture would most likely have a neutral to negative effect on the community in which they've entered, as the majority of the students would most likely not understand a single aspect of their lecture, and thus the time would be effectively wasted (and perhaps even "turn off" the students to aspirations of higher education due to the exceedingly poor attempt at designing a lecture tailored for the appropriate audience).

So what does this all mean for an individual? Never stop challenging your intellect and learning everything you can - lord knows the world needs its brilliant minds. However, focus enough of your mental energies into developing an awareness of the world around you and how you fit into that world, responding to external stimuli in a way that is beneficial to the community, not you alone. Perhaps an easier way of saying this would be don't be an arrogant jerk, be patient with those with minds that aren't as quick as yours, and find receptive ways to communicate to your audience.

Just another theoretical physicist.

Oh my god, Dan. Will you please stop stereotyping?

Oh my god, Dan. Will you please stop stereotyping?

What stereotyping?
Will you please stop going out of your way looking for means to interpret things people say as offensive to you? We had enough of that with Jamie.

Every example Dan thinks of to prove his point involves some socially-deprived study-all-day intellectual doing some stereotypical activity. For example, he mentioned a Nobel laureate going to Chicago to give a presentation. Then, he generalizes this into intelligent people being impatient, arrogant jerks. In his previous post, he generalizes all intellectuals as "nerdy brainiacs" who always put their studies before all else, and he states that this set of people are incapable of socializing properly and that they're better sticking to each other.

Who says that Nobel laureates have to give presentations all the time? Who says that "nerdy brainiacs" can't have fun participating in "normal" day-to-day activities? Dan gives unrealistic stereotypical situations, and I don't see a problem with calling him out on it. I'm not offended by what Dan says. I just don't find his arguments convincing at all, because they come without just bases.

I'm not offended by what Dan says. I just don't find his arguments convincing at all, because they come without just bases.

It was a hypothetical example given of some thing "not to do". It's not like he was making actual sweeping generalizations.
"Calling him out on it" is just needless drama and thread derailment.

If asking him make his argument more realistic is thread derailment, what are we meant to discuss?

If asking him make his argument more realistic is thread derailment, what are we meant to discuss?

"Oh my god, Dan. Will you please stop stereotyping?"

That is not honestly asking anything; At best it's a rhetorical attack framed as a request, not a question that directly relates to the topic at hand, elaborates on his comment or contributes in any way beside venting your own feelings.

Honestly, you're right, I'm stereotyping, and for that I'm sorry, but believe it or not my argument has merit to the discussion at hand, considering it's essentially the discussion at hand. Now before you get all uppity, no, I'm not saying certain stereotypical groups are always and only the socially inept ones, but considering the context of this conversation (read: thread appropriately titled "kid genius"), such examples have merit.

Side-bar: of all people I'm the last person you need to give a lesson to on stereotyping, considering I'm stereotyped every day of my life. Needless to say, it comes as quite the surprise to many stereotypers when I mention to them I have a world ranked Lv. 200 in an online video game.

Beyond myself, like I said in my first post which you're still attacking, I have a lot of brilliant, "kid genius" friends who are anything but the "nerd" stereotype. My only point with using the examples of a Nobel laureate and "nerdy braniacs" is to paint an exaggerated picture in one's mind so as to highlight the underlying issue of being socially unawares of one's surroundings. Anyone can be an arrogant prick in any context and in any field, provided they're trying to annoyingly flaunt their particular intellect in the matter in a manner that pisses others off. But again, the only reason I used the examples I did is because - wait for it - we're discussing socially "unacceptable" overachieving.

inb4 digits realizes that "sweeping generalizations" are in fact necessary when discussing non specified persons interactions with non specified groups of people.

1. Froz's point is written in the first sentence of his post. He and I argue that it does in fact exist. I gave a generalization that it exists, he gives examples in which it is possible that it may not be a problem, however, both is evidence claim that it exists.

No. There is an essential differentiation that froz makes which i basically summarized with this:

Achieving excellence or overachieving is not socially unaccaptable. Being a giant prick about your giant brain is not achieving anything at all, let alone overachieving. It's just being a braggart.

Being in possession of a vast or better than average intellect is not what is in itself socially unacceptable. Swinging it around like it's a damn weapon is. any 10 year old can show off to any 8 year old using things the 8 year has not learned yet. That isn't intelligence. Nor does it achieve anything or enrich anyone.

oh and beloved, quoting yourself 3 times in a post =/= other people agreeing with you.

inb4 digits realizes that "sweeping generalizations" are in fact necessary when discussing non specified persons interactions with non specified groups of people.

Now we're stooping down to namecalling. lol I'm out~

dam he's hella smart

Now we're stooping down to namecalling. lol I'm out~

... name calling?
Referring to harry by a summarization because he doesn't know his original name instead of his overflow value is hardly name calling.

my stepbrother has aspberger's and he struggles in all aspects of school and social interaction. he plays video games a lot but he's not a pro in any one of those either. really the only thing i see that he takes interest in over most other things is like cheat codes and glitches in games

... name calling?
Referring to harry by a summarization because he doesn't know his original name instead of his overflow value is hardly name calling.

Hmm.. seems it was a misinterpret. I thought it was a reference to me due to my using numbered pointform to clean up a post. My apologies.


Either way, right now, all i see is a steady downhill from a chill chat to something resembling a rubik's cube debate. I wasn't really inclined to pursue any more explanations to begin with and now it's just gone farther than I care to continue. So as far as arguing with people endlessly, I rather waste the time on a plant. It yields more results anyway. Also, the more we pursue the discussion, the more it starts to become less about the specific kid this thread should've been about. It went from being about this kid, to being about people LIKE this kid. So .. I'm still out. lol

Now we're stooping down to namecalling. lol I'm out~

This really cracked me up.