I think it came out that way because I answered some of the social questions hesitantly. With me it all depends on the people. With some people or groups I am very social, with others I withdraw. I do have deep understandings of people's inner workings, so I am people smart in that sense (and most people who know me would easily agree). But I don't always choose to engage people or express myself that way. So to me it is more of a lack of desire than a lack of capacity. The test did not seem to make that distinction. It merely focused on how you behave, and from that concluded capacity.

I am at a genius level in some areas, and generally more intelligent than my peers. I am used to being surrounded by people who just don't get things I get, don't see things I see. As I grew up I developed various mechanisms for existing in this world, and one of them I admit is a bit of arrogance. I just need a little space from most people - I am in this world but not of it. I don't subscribe to the paradigms that most people take for granted.

Indeed - perspective creates perception. There is much we don't perceive simply because we are limited in our perspectives.

I appreciate the reminder - can always use those. I am always learning, even if it may not appear that way to you. In fact that's why I posted this question - to learn about how people perceive it. Can you show me some aspect I don't see?

The result is thus far a mixture of denial (reducing it to morality in an attempt to evade the issue) and acceptance. We are so trained to think of people who are clever as being smart, and we invest so much in our own identities as "smart", that it is very hard to consider that smart people may be doing pretty dumb things after all. In a sense my question was a friendly attack on your (collective) ego. I posted it here because the Philosophy section is where people practice being smart. I wanted to see how you handled the 'attack'. In the discussion of the forum where people seemed smart but weren't very bright after all, did you put yourself in the picture? Were you offended a little? Did it sting?

So I am always the student - I observe carefully. And like psych experiments, what I ask is not always indicative of what I am observing.

Yeah, I try to contribute an outsider's view (as a subscriber to different paradigms).

Perhaps, perhaps not. Who can say? Do you know my truth?

One of the paradigms I would say you exist in is a paradigm where a dichotomy is a falsehood - 'that which is contradictory is false'. That is not an assumption I choose to make. In fact most of life is dichotomous by nature - seemingly contradictory truths existing in the same space. This is a truer version of reality than the divisive and conclusive paradigm that most people think and live within.

So your statement that I have "dichotomized the information" may be correct, but your implication that this indicates bias may be the opposite of the truth. It may merely indicate that I am harmonizing with the discussion - singing in harmony. To sing in harmony does not mean to sing the same or in opposition. It means to develop a synergistic harmonic oneness which is transcendental.

But am I desperate for change? Many people perceive me that way because I address issues in such a way that creates desperation in them. Either they have to deny what I am saying, and thus be free of the need to change it, or if they admit what I am saying, then they have to do something about it - desperation. They miss a third alternative - acceptance.

Consider that I may perceive this differently. The analogy of the runaway train I used, for example (in another discussion)... If you were on a runaway train, you and many others might be inclined to panic - frenetic activity which yields little results, often making the situation worse. Could you simply do nothing and remain calm?

I do not believe much in trying to change the world. I do not believe the world can be changed - it is perfect just as it is - a perfect reflection of our state of being. That is not to say the world does not change, or that I am not a part of the world, and thus part of the change. In fact, to me "change" is synonymous with "life". Nothing is static, but is in continuous change. Perfectly. Just as it is. Unchangably changing, the unmovable mover.

When I speak of what may be frightening issues, I don't necessarily view them with the desperation that others do. When I address what someone else is being or saying, it is not necessarily my intention to change them. You may assign that intention or desperation to me out of habit, but that does not mean it is there.

So I would say you misperceive my state of being. But that's also not to say I am cold and removed from it all. I am a part of it all, and I throw myself into the mud to see what emerges from the process. I lose myself in the process, yet I don't. (Another dichotomy.)

Can you tell a master by observing a master? Or will the master sometimes appear the fool (BE the fool to be the master)?

When you observe this, point it out to me, and perhaps we will see some truth to it.

The macro view is merely a part, just as the micro is. The full view includes all perspectives, and thus all answers.

It is not merely a contrived dichotomy, it is a genuine dichotomy. It does not exist within the illusion of duality, but beyond the illusion in the realm of the absolute. (The absolute, being the absolute, includes all views, and is thus inherently dichotomous.)

Condemnation and judgment are aspects I seek to avoid. I consider them dysfunctional. You may think you hear judgment or condemnation in something I write, but often that is not because I put it there, but because you did (perhaps out of your judgment or condemnation, or perhaps because you assume it must be present). Words can be limited for communication. Just because a set of words is typically used in judgment, doesn't mean I am in judgment when I use them.

Take "primitive" for example. Many people would consider that a judgment or insult, but that is merely because they have a vested ego interest in viewing themselves as "advanced". Primitive simply means in an early stage of development, and it is a relative term - primitive to what?

I think you are just being clever in your denial. You don't want to see the stupidity in many smart people (and ultimately in yourself), so you are muddying the water, similar to declaring it merely a moral consideration. Any distinction between personal and social is illusory - an arbitrary division, in this case for the purpose of denial.

Conflict itself is a symptom of imbalance (or imbalanced perspective != intelligence).

Indeed! The truth comes to the hungry.

No, there I disagree with you. Competition is anathema to survival. I would say you are operating within a primitive paradigm. If you read my comments in this discussion http://joindiscussion.com/civil-libe...eball-tag.html
you'll get my basic ideas on competition, what it is, and why it isn't desirable.

Any words that come after that clause would be in error, as it contains the faulty assumption that competition is required. That is a popular social myth, nothing more. Competition is NEVER required for any desired result, and works against most desired results.

It is cooperation in the system which creates the effect you describe. What there is of competition merely reduces that effect. (I realize this runs directly contrary to the social myth you have been taught, but if you notice, this is a highly dysfunctional social system).

No, I believe you are fooled.

Neither are inherently flawed, merely incomplete. And anything undertaken in fear is dangerous - fear creates danger.

There I will agree.

Thanks for your thoughts.