Does anyone really believe that either of these guys got where they are today by acting like that off stage? I highly doubt it. Anyone who achieves that level of success has to learn some form of diplomatic behaviors, and learn when to turn them on and shut them off. It's said that Steve Jobs could be very abrasive, and certain people never learned to really like him at all. It is true that even highly successful people can be total jerks sometimes, but if they were like that all the time, I'm sure they would never have gotten where they are.
I find it quite interesting you choose to bring up Steve Jobs when your whole point is that you don't get successful by not being nice. If someone were to tell Steve Jobs (while he was still alive, obviously) to stop using big words I'm sure, knowing the type of person he was, he would not be polite at all. I even have a friend who knew Jobs and he told me simply: "Despite how he is on stage [in Apple keynotes and WWDC] he isn't a nice person." If you're talking about success here, then being nice doesn't make you successful, being logical and calculating makes you successful, generally speaking.
Now if your boss tells you to stop using "big words" then perhaps you have a point, because not pointing out what an idiot s/he is would be beneficial to your career, but even then you'd probably laugh about it behind their back, and certainly if you are the boss - as Steve Jobs was - then you no longer need to pretend to be nice to stupid people. Hell, Jobs wasn't even nice to people when he wasn't the boss.
I mean look at Bill Gates too. Did he get to to where he is by being all wishy-washy or was he a savvy and harsh businessman with somewhat questionable business ethics who drove all competition out the market by either forcing them to sell up or copying their products? Think about it.
That said, Fry and Laurie are in the entertainment biz, which means they likely got to where they are by being charismatic and funny, which they are of course. But that doesn't necessarily mean "being nice to idiots" either. Anyone who's read Fry's writing or seen enough of his sketches and other work will tell you that when he disagrees with something he will say so and will spare the niceties. A Bit of Fry and Laurie is actually a good example of this because a lot of the sketches are used as vehicles for making points about societal and political issues.
Just two examples I remember off the top of my head:
Joined: May 22, 2011 Age: 18 Posts: 1014 Location: In an evil testing facility
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:15 am Post subject:
I never dumb down my vocabulary for others. I don't see why I should, they are the ones who should better their understanding and therefore be able to fathom what I am talking about. The only problem is when you get anti-intellectual individuals who openly bash you simply for being more intelligent and using more advanced language than them. Also, people seem to look at me funny for using metaphorical constructs to explain a concept; how screwed up is that?!
I never dumb down my vocabulary for others. I don't see why I should, they are the ones who should better their understanding and therefore be able to fathom what I am talking about. The only problem is when you get anti-intellectual individuals who openly bash you simply for being more intelligent and using more advanced language than them. Also, people seem to look at me funny for using metaphorical constructs to explain a concept; how screwed up is that?!
But then what do you do when you need to communicate an idea to people who initially don't understand you? Do you simply give up and accept that they don't understand you? That would be fine if it's not very important for them to understand but situations must come up where you need them to understand.
Joined: Oct 08, 2009 Posts: 2516 Location: Aspergers Quadrant, INTJ, AQ 45/50
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:02 pm Post subject:
I am learning how important it is to dumb things down.
Partly because it makes it easier for others to understand me if I do dumb it down, particularly clients. (A practical consideration)
Secondly because some people, clients, colleagues, business associates etc, are quite intimidated by intellect, which is tedious _________________ Now then, tell me. What did Miggs say to you? Multiple Miggs in the next cell. He hissed at you. What did he say?
Joined: May 12, 2010 Posts: 5678 Location: New England
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:05 pm Post subject:
Asp-Z wrote:
MrXxx wrote:
Does anyone really believe that either of these guys got where they are today by acting like that off stage? I highly doubt it. Anyone who achieves that level of success has to learn some form of diplomatic behaviors, and learn when to turn them on and shut them off. It's said that Steve Jobs could be very abrasive, and certain people never learned to really like him at all. It is true that even highly successful people can be total jerks sometimes, but if they were like that all the time, I'm sure they would never have gotten where they are.
I find it quite interesting you choose to bring up Steve Jobs when your whole point is that you don't get successful by not being nice. If someone were to tell Steve Jobs (while he was still alive, obviously) to stop using big words I'm sure, knowing the type of person he was, he would not be polite at all. I even have a friend who knew Jobs and he told me simply: "Despite how he is on stage [in Apple keynotes and WWDC] he isn't a nice person." If you're talking about success here, then being nice doesn't make you successful, being logical and calculating makes you successful, generally speaking.
Now if your boss tells you to stop using "big words" then perhaps you have a point, because not pointing out what an idiot s/he is would be beneficial to your career, but even then you'd probably laugh about it behind their back, and certainly if you are the boss - as Steve Jobs was - then you no longer need to pretend to be nice to stupid people. Hell, Jobs wasn't even nice to people when he wasn't the boss.
I mean look at Bill Gates too. Did he get to to where he is by being all wishy-washy or was he a savvy and harsh businessman with somewhat questionable business ethics who drove all competition out the market by either forcing them to sell up or copying their products? Think about it.
That said, Fry and Laurie are in the entertainment biz, which means they likely got to where they are by being charismatic and funny, which they are of course. But that doesn't necessarily mean "being nice to idiots" either. Anyone who's read Fry's writing or seen enough of his sketches and other work will tell you that when he disagrees with something he will say so and will spare the niceties. A Bit of Fry and Laurie is actually a good example of this because a lot of the sketches are used as vehicles for making points about societal and political issues.
You're right. Jobs probably was not the greatest example to pick. I did say he could be abrasive. And yes, many people who knew him freely admit he wasn't very likable.
My point is that regardless of who he or anyone else dealt with during their climb to success, I don't believe it was abrasiveness, or calling others "stupid" that got them there. I'm sure that all of them chose to turn that side of themselves off if necessary, depending on the company of people they were with at the time. If they're with someone they NEED something from, and want it bad enough, I'm certain they aren't going to be an as*hole to them, unless they know the person is one who has the ability to see through that and find some value in the relationship that benefits them. If they are with a person who may not be able to get past it, and that person has something they want, they're NOT likely to act like assholes and risk losing an opportunity.
Nobody gets to that level of success without understanding when they can get away with being a dick, and when they can't. In many cases, the ability is driven by a self centered motivation. In others, it's driven by a genuine love for people, and that translates to likability.
How a person measures success also has a lot to do with it. If it's in money and/or recognition, and nothing else, one can get away with a lot more of what many would call unacceptable behaviors, as long as one learns when to turn them off and on at the right times, with the right people. Most people I know call that manipulative.
Those who measure it in happiness and good positive relationships, learn not to be manipulative, and don't resort to generalizing entire groups of people as "stupid." (I'm referring to the point in this thread about calling NT's in general stupid at this point). I find that stupid in itself since it prejudges an entire group of people based solely on the fact that they don't have Autism. I find that pretty stupid whether one measures success with money, power and influence, or measures it in happiness and friendships.
Why?
Because by generalizing an entire group as stupid, you've just insulted the entire group, many of whom you could be dead wrong about, and all of whom will now most likely want nothing to do with you if they know what you're attitude is toward them. Some of them could be useful in your quest for success, no matter how you define it.
As for the comedy bits, I found them pretty funny, but what I'm seeing there are satires on specific attitudes and policies, not choosing an entire group of people and branding them as idiots or stupid. Unless you want to claim "politicians" but that to me is a completely different story. Some groups are acceptable to satire. Groups comprised entirely of people who have put themselves intentionally in the public arena should expect it. I also find it acceptable for members of a particular group to satirize themselves. I find it to be a fairly bad idea for members of one group comprised mainly of private individuals, to satirize or insult another group comprised mainly of private individuals in stereotypical fashion.
I found this sketch one of the funniest I've ever seen.
WARNING! Extreme racist speech! Please consider the context carefully!
How funny would this video be if it were done by David Duke in black face? (intentionally extreme example, but you get the point)
Many of the same people in the Autistic community who call NT's stupid, are also the same individuals who rant about Autistic stereotypes. Isn't that just a little hypocritical? _________________ MrXxx is taking a long sabbatical, and no longer moderating.
Joined: Jan 25, 2011 Posts: 2304 Location: SE Pennsylvania
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:25 pm Post subject:
Blindspot149 wrote:
I am learning how important it is to dumb things down.
Partly because it makes it easier for others to understand me if I do dumb it down, particularly clients. (A practical consideration)
Secondly because some people, clients, colleagues, business associates etc, are quite intimidated by intellect, which is tedious
Tedious - that is exactly the characterization!
I need a team to work closely with me to get the job done - they need to understand me. The problem with dumbing down your speech is A) if you don't dumb it down enough they don't understand you and potentially feel like you are a snob and B) if you dumb it down too much they think you are an arrogant a-hole who's simply patronizing them. (...I've had to explain 'patronizing' to someone before while using it in this context...)
"I wasn't patronizing you."
"There you go again! What's 'patronizing?!"
"It means talking to you like you are stupid. Which I wasn't."
Joined: Jan 25, 2011 Posts: 2304 Location: SE Pennsylvania
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:32 pm Post subject:
abyssquick wrote:
It's a great way to cut down on the cost of one's food, whilst simultaneously becoming educated, and eating healthfully! There are lots of books - my favorites are those of Samuel Thayer "Nature's Garden" and "Forager's Harvest" -- He has continued in the same spirit as Euell Gibbons, confirming and sometimes even correcting Euell's teachings. Gibbons' 3 main books are a standard in the subject - and John Kallas "Edible Wild Plants: Wild Foods From Dirt To Plate" is also top-notch work.
The best guide for fungi wild identification purposes (and I have 7 re: the Northeast US specifically) is Roger Phillips "Mushrooms and Other Fungi of North America" - it has full color pictures of all the mushrooms as collected by the author in the wild. The most useful book one could hope for.
Thank you for the references! I have a few mushroom books but I've been rather chicken to try it out on my own without a professional guide. A 'field guide' would help alleviate some of that fear.
If Sheldon Cooper "won't kowtow to mediocre minds.", why should you?
The 'Sheldon' also said to his cohort "As I have explained repeatedly, unlike you, I don't need validation from lesser minds."
Follow the example of OUR DEAR LEADER the wondrous Sheldon Cooper and all will be well. _________________ Since the birth of civilization, masters have controlled the masses.Our Masters rule over every nation and no one can defy them.They will attain Absolute Power as we reach the Singularity. Any who resist will be destroyed.I will not resist.
You're right. Jobs probably was not the greatest example to pick. I did say he could be abrasive. And yes, many people who knew him freely admit he wasn't very likable.
My point is that regardless of who he or anyone else dealt with during their climb to success, I don't believe it was abrasiveness, or calling others "stupid" that got them there. I'm sure that all of them chose to turn that side of themselves off if necessary, depending on the company of people they were with at the time. If they're with someone they NEED something from, and want it bad enough, I'm certain they aren't going to be an as*hole to them, unless they know the person is one who has the ability to see through that and find some value in the relationship that benefits them. If they are with a person who may not be able to get past it, and that person has something they want, they're NOT likely to act like assholes and risk losing an opportunity.
Nobody gets to that level of success without understanding when they can get away with being a dick, and when they can't. In many cases, the ability is driven by a self centered motivation. In others, it's driven by a genuine love for people, and that translates to likability.
How a person measures success also has a lot to do with it. If it's in money and/or recognition, and nothing else, one can get away with a lot more of what many would call unacceptable behaviors, as long as one learns when to turn them off and on at the right times, with the right people. Most people I know call that manipulative.
Those who measure it in happiness and good positive relationships, learn not to be manipulative, and don't resort to generalizing entire groups of people as "stupid." (I'm referring to the point in this thread about calling NT's in general stupid at this point). I find that stupid in itself since it prejudges an entire group of people based solely on the fact that they don't have Autism. I find that pretty stupid whether one measures success with money, power and influence, or measures it in happiness and friendships.
Why?
Because by generalizing an entire group as stupid, you've just insulted the entire group, many of whom you could be dead wrong about, and all of whom will now most likely want nothing to do with you if they know what you're attitude is toward them. Some of them could be useful in your quest for success, no matter how you define it.
As for the comedy bits, I found them pretty funny, but what I'm seeing there are satires on specific attitudes and policies, not choosing an entire group of people and branding them as idiots or stupid. Unless you want to claim "politicians" but that to me is a completely different story. Some groups are acceptable to satire. Groups comprised entirely of people who have put themselves intentionally in the public arena should expect it. I also find it acceptable for members of a particular group to satirize themselves. I find it to be a fairly bad idea for members of one group comprised mainly of private individuals, to satirize or insult another group comprised mainly of private individuals in stereotypical fashion.
I found this sketch one of the funniest I've ever seen.
WARNING! Extreme racist speech! Please consider the context carefully!
How funny would this video be if it were done by David Duke in black face? (intentionally extreme example, but you get the point)
Many of the same people in the Autistic community who call NT's stupid, are also the same individuals who rant about Autistic stereotypes. Isn't that just a little hypocritical?
As I said, there are certainly times where it's beneficial to let stupid things pass, I do agree there, but I don't see why you should feel obligated to do so if you don't need anything from that person either. If someone acts like an idiot but isn't in fact an idiot then they'll correct their behaviour as a result of being called out on it, else they're simply idiots.
The definition of success thing is of course very subjective. In this specific context, success is doing well in whatever your chosen field is, and as such being manipulative is very helpful indeed. But hey, it's either that or upset people who would otherwise help you, so what ya gonna do?
Did anyone in this thread actually call all NT's idiots? I don't believe they did, but if so then they were wrong to do so. The "us vs. them" mentality is indeed not helpful to anyone.
Here's another KKK sketch (not at all actually racist, it basically just makes fun of their uniform and name):
Joined: Aug 15, 2008 Posts: 8378 Location: australia
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:49 pm Post subject:
OddDuckNash99 wrote:
b9 wrote:
you would have better served your self by ignoring my post, because now it seems to me that you are arrogant enough to think that my post was in any way referring to you.
The fact that you responded only two posts after mine and put the word erudite, which only I had used, in sarcastic quotes makes it highly suspect that your snide comment was directed towards me.
it is evident that the the incendiary foundation of your pride was detonated without sufficient catalyctic impetus. the coincidence of my utterance with the detail of your previous thread inculcated an inefficient expenditure of your energy employed in consternation, when in reality you should have considered the fact that it was not certain that my comment was generated by your previous communicative deliverance.
or in other words, "you went off half cocked".
i did not read your post and i used the word without reference to you.
or i could say alternatively "i did not peruse your literary contribution, and the generation of my contribution was irrespective of your cognitive presentation"
i always choose to say things in words that are most commonly understood.
OddDuckNash99 wrote:
And if your comment was not directed towards me, perhaps I misinterpreted your message due to the fact that I have Asperger's, not because I'm arrogant?
maybe it is due to paranoia. i promise you that i never read what you wrote. i have seen other posts where the word "erudite" was used (along with may other ornamental words) and i thought "yawn...another example of sesquipedalianism".
there are so many posts that i begin to read that are cloaked in a veil of linguistic snobbishness that i do not bother to read them.
huge ideas can be said with little words.
people who use esoteric words do so because they are trying to display their intelligence like peacocks who ruffle their tail feathers ti impress.
Joined: Aug 15, 2008 Posts: 8378 Location: australia
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:05 pm Post subject:
slave wrote:
If Sheldon Cooper "won't kowtow to mediocre minds.", why should you?
The 'Sheldon' also said to his cohort "As I have explained repeatedly, unlike you, I don't need validation from lesser minds."
you are like an intellectual snob. i believe all minds (including animals minds) are beautiful, and you think that only minds that are intellectually advanced to be worthy of respect. i consider that idea to be conceited and i am glad i am not like you.
i would not value your life as more worthy than a little bird who sees it's own version of reality. innocence is the most valuable attribute of any mind i believe.
slave wrote:
Follow the example of OUR DEAR LEADER the wondrous Sheldon Cooper and all will be well.
i consider that statement to be a joke. i will not comment further about that because i think there is some non serious aspect to what you say that does not warrant a considered reply.
Joined: May 22, 2011 Age: 18 Posts: 1014 Location: In an evil testing facility
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:15 pm Post subject:
Janissy wrote:
ScientistOfSound wrote:
I never dumb down my vocabulary for others. I don't see why I should, they are the ones who should better their understanding and therefore be able to fathom what I am talking about. The only problem is when you get anti-intellectual individuals who openly bash you simply for being more intelligent and using more advanced language than them. Also, people seem to look at me funny for using metaphorical constructs to explain a concept; how screwed up is that?!
But then what do you do when you need to communicate an idea to people who initially don't understand you? Do you simply give up and accept that they don't understand you? That would be fine if it's not very important for them to understand but situations must come up where you need them to understand.
I have to dumb it down of course, the annoyances of social convention and all that. However I don't see why I should be the one getting weird looks for not using simple vocabulary.
maybe it is due to paranoia. i promise you that i never read what you wrote. i have seen other posts where the word "erudite" was used (along with may other ornamental words) and i thought "yawn...another example of sesquipedalianism"
people who use esoteric words do so because they are trying to display their intelligence like peacocks who ruffle their tail feathers ti impress.
Fair enough that I jumped to conclusions. I apologize for accusing you. But I must point out that using the word "sesquipedalianism" right before saying that using advanced vocabulary is egregiously arrogant destroys your whole argument, regardless of whether or not you were being sarcastic. _________________ Helinger: Now, what do you see, John?
Nash: Recognition...
Helinger: Well, try seeing accomplishment!
Nash: Is there a difference?
If Sheldon Cooper "won't kowtow to mediocre minds.", why should you?
The 'Sheldon' also said to his cohort "As I have explained repeatedly, unlike you, I don't need validation from lesser minds."
you are like an intellectual snob. i believe all minds (including animals minds) are beautiful, and you think that only minds that are intellectually advanced to be worthy of respect. i consider that idea to be conceited and i am glad i am not like you.
i would not value your life as more worthy than a little bird who sees it's own version of reality. innocence is the most valuable attribute of any mind i believe.
slave wrote:
Follow the example of OUR DEAR LEADER the wondrous Sheldon Cooper and all will be well.
i consider that statement to be a joke. i will not comment further about that because i think there is some non serious aspect to what you say that does not warrant a considered reply.
Why is it that my remarks caused you to think it appropriate to engage in name-calling?
Kindly help me to understand your choice. You may use single syllable words or polysyllabic words as I am conversant in both. _________________ Since the birth of civilization, masters have controlled the masses.Our Masters rule over every nation and no one can defy them.They will attain Absolute Power as we reach the Singularity. Any who resist will be destroyed.I will not resist.
