If you belong in the "Ivory Tower" how do you communicate with everyone else?

[Bit_Happy]

Please note: My specific question has 'unique details' which are vital to a helpful answer, thanks.
In school I was accused/moderately abused (picked on) for being a "genius", but not like Satoshi, for example. My 'world class skills' are/were highly abstract creative thinking (i.e. advanced geometry), combining ideas, creating solutions which no one else sees.

First a "challenge" then a question:
Challenge (quiz / test / experiment)  Do YOU know, can you see it?
Not promotional, since anyone in the Ivory Tower should know the ETH Bubble Game has serious issues: I see an extremely obvious, simple way to turn the ETH Bubble Game into a better money machine which helps the working class, and slowly drains "their thing" while building something clearly better. To me the opportunity too help others while improving the Crypto stench is clear as day.

The challenge: What exactly am I saying, what is the "one simple project/change" which makes a huge difference?   
Question: How do I learn to communicate with "normal people" when things are so obvious to me, but almost no one else understands?  // I once had a soul-mate who completely understood my unique sense of humor, but RIP that sadly ended unexpectedly over ten years ago.

Thanks for any answer to either question. 

[1713559946]

1713559946

[1713559946]

1713559946

[aleksej996]

Question: How do I learn to communicate with "normal people" when things are so obvious to me, but almost no one else understands?

Nobody is better than anyone else. Perhaps start by seeing yourself as equal to other people and they might start wanting to talk to you.

[jackg]

Could you post/pm this idea. I'm quite interested in knowing what it is - unless it's something you particularly want to keep to yourself?

Question: How do I learn to communicate with "normal people" when things are so obvious to me, but almost no one else understands? 

I have the answer. If someone of high intelligence is unable to transmit information to less intellectual/"normal" people, they must merely give that information to someone of slightly less intelligence but can still understand that information. Allowing that person to become a link in the chain. Now obviously, that person will take a lot of finding, but you've ended up here - we have some intellectuals amongst us. And there'll be users here on this forum that will know how to take your information and use their aggregation to split it down into it's vital parts so it can be understood by the common man.

I once had a soul-mate who completely understood my unique sense of humor, but RIP that sadly ended unexpectedly over ten years ago.

I hope you don't mind me picking up on this part however, this is, to me a promising sign for you and will mean you can find someone.

[paxmao]

Even the latest Physics theories or mathematical theorems proofs can be divided in small single steps. A completely different thing is to be able to make others interested in reading your proof or have the time to develop an understandable explanation. That also requires ability and sometimes is impossible.

https://www.nature.com/news/the-biggest-mystery-in-mathematics-shinichi-mochizuki-and-the-impenetrable-proof-1.18509

The good news is that normally it is possible since it rarely requires a genius to understand if properly explained. The procedure is to get some experts in the field to validate your model, theory or proposal and then, even if other people can´t understand, the community will accept it.

[RJX]

 
Question: How do I learn to communicate with "normal people" when things are so obvious to me, but almost no one else understands? 

It's not all your fault probably.


If your not bright as the sun your illumination really can (and should) light only those chambers in the house of life you deem necessary.

Occupy them wisely.

[Jet Cash]

I can sympathise with you.

I joined Mensa, and I went to several of their meetings, and special interest group discussions.

I was also lucky to have been able to work on some of Michael Argyle's projects in Oxford. His treatise on the problems that some people have as a result of their inability to synchronise interpersonal communication was particularly interesting for me.

[odolvlobo]

Easy. Fix your grammar and don't write a sentence in the form of a puzzle for the reader to solve.

[gjhiggins]

How do I learn to communicate with "normal people" when things are so obvious to me, but almost no one else understands?

By using your SQ¹ to augment your (quite clearly communicated) relative lack of EQ¹ and thereby resulting a more accurate ToM².

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory
² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

HTH

Cheers

Graham

[TheGodson]

Please note: My specific question has 'unique details' which are vital to a helpful answer, thanks.
In school I was accused/moderately abused (picked on) for being a "genius", but not like Satoshi, for example. My 'world class skills' are/were highly abstract creative thinking (i.e. advanced geometry), combining ideas, creating solutions which no one else sees.

First a "challenge" then a question:
Challenge (quiz / test / experiment)  Do YOU know, can you see it?
Not promotional, since anyone in the Ivory Tower should know the ETH Bubble Game has serious issues: I see an extremely obvious, simple way to turn the ETH Bubble Game into a better money machine which helps the working class, and slowly drains "their thing" while building something clearly better. To me the opportunity too help others while improving the Crypto stench is clear as day.

The challenge: What exactly am I saying, what is the "one simple project/change" which makes a huge difference?    
Question: How do I learn to communicate with "normal people" when things are so obvious to me, but almost no one else understands?  // I once had a soul-mate who completely understood my unique sense of humor, but RIP that sadly ended unexpectedly over ten years ago.

Thanks for any answer to either question.  

Well, to be honest, it is confusing trying to figure out what you are wanting in your post. It isn't that people aren't smart enough to understand it, it is that you aren't communicating clearly/efficiently.

When things are obvious to you, but not to others you should try and view things from their perspective. This may be hard to do sometimes since you may not be aware of what they are capable of and not capable of, but it is a skill that takes practice to get better. If you are explaining something that others are unknowledgable about, drop jargon entirely. Also leaving out some details can keep people from losing interest or getting confused.

For example, if I am explaining a poker hand to a fellow poker player I may say something like this:

I was playing a $200 HU SNG online. 1,500 chip stacks each with 75 BB stacks to start. I minraised to 40 with J5s in the SB. My opponent, who was an aggressive reg, 3-bet to 120. Normally I'd fold here, but I decided -fuck it- and 4-bet to 285. My opponent tanked and finally called. Flop came Q73 rainbow. He checks, I bet 200. My opponent quickly called. Turn was another 3, pairing the board and giving me a flush draw. He checks, and I quickly bet 700 and my opponent calls. River is an ace, but it doesn't complete the flush. My opponent checks and I push all-in, 630 more to win 2,370. I figured he'd probably call, but I only need to win 1/4 of the time in order for it to work. Fortunately my opponent tank folds and flips over Q9o.


I may explain that same hand to a non-poker player like this:

The other day I was playing a $200 online poker game versus a single opponent. I made a bet and he raised me. I re-raised him and he called. This is a pretty uncommon spot to be in and normally you would want to have a premium hand in my spot like two aces or two kings. I had a garbage hand though; I was bluffing. I bet all three streets and was all-in by the river. My opponent only had a small amount to call at the end in proportion to what was in the pot, but he believed my bluff enough to the point that he folded a queen.


To someone who is very confused easily or doesn't like poker I might break it down even more:

Last night I played a poker game and ran a huge bluff. It was exhilerating.


Try and guage your audience's facial ticks and body language to try and see if they are understanding or not. If they seem bewildered start making it more and more general until they start to understand on at least some level. For certain things they won't be able to see them the same way you do so there will be limits on their understanding. You like advanced geometry which won't be of much interest to a lot of people and that is a pretty hard thing to explain. There are some people that have interest in those sort of things. They just will be harder to find. Take me for instance, I recently have learned about regular polytopes and now have a rough understanding of how they are constructed in higher dimensional space. If you were to explain advanced geometry to me you'd probably want to do something along the lines of what I did in my second explanation for my poker bluff. If you went with an explanation like in the first explanation I'd be completely lost.

Also, be as inviting to questions as possible. Try not to get frustrated or make sarcastic remarks, people will be much more willing and comfortable to understand things when they are experiencing positive interactions. I hope this has helped.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

In school I was accused/moderately abused (picked on) for being a "genius", but not like Satoshi, for example. My 'world class skills' are/were highly abstract creative thinking (i.e. advanced geometry), combining ideas, creating solutions which no one else sees.

No, it's because you lacked social skills.

secondly to your question, it's exactly the point of the ivory tower, to not communicate with everyone else .

cheers

ps. you could find people who share the same hobbies as you... it's a great and easy way to meet people, who at least share one of your interests. And please don't be mean to noobs, you could show them things .

[iluvbitcoins]

Question: How do I learn to communicate with "normal people" when things are so obvious to me, but almost no one else understands?

Nobody is better than anyone else. Perhaps start by seeing yourself as equal to other people and they might start wanting to talk to you.

That's just not true.
A lot of people are 'better' than other people.

@OP
Do you understand the subject well enough?

To de Broglie, Einstein revealed an instinctive reason for his inability to accept the purely statistical interpretation of wave mechanics. It was a reason which linked him with Rutherford, who used to state that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Einstein, having a final discussion with de Broglie on the platform of the Gare du Nord in Paris, whence they had traveled from Brussels to attend the Fresnel centenary celebrations, said "that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.' "

[paxmao]

Question: How do I learn to communicate with "normal people" when things are so obvious to me, but almost no one else understands?

Nobody is better than anyone else. Perhaps start by seeing yourself as equal to other people and they might start wanting to talk to you.

That's just not true.
A lot of people are 'better' than other people.

@OP
Do you understand the subject well enough?

To de Broglie, Einstein revealed an instinctive reason for his inability to accept the purely statistical interpretation of wave mechanics. It was a reason which linked him with Rutherford, who used to state that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Einstein, having a final discussion with de Broglie on the platform of the Gare du Nord in Paris, whence they had traveled from Brussels to attend the Fresnel centenary celebrations, said "that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.' "

Oh, well, my understanding of the meaning of that is that even the most complex theory can be divided in small comprehensible pieces of logic steps that "anyone" can understand.

[aleksej996]

That's just not true.
A lot of people are 'better' than other people.

I don't agree. Valuating people is subjective and everyone has their own characteristics that they value.
You can't judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree.
If those people lived long enough to survive and reproduce for millions of years, there must be something they are pretty good at, even if that something is just getting along with other people well.

It takes a lot of effort and skill, for example, to do something as a team and explain your views to others.
Some people are just more naturally gifted at it than others. They might have a good temperament and patience for example.

[iluvbitcoins]

That's just not true.
A lot of people are 'better' than other people.

I don't agree. Valuating people is subjective and everyone has their own characteristics that they value.
You can't judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree.
If those people lived long enough to survive and reproduce for millions of years, there must be something they are pretty good at, even if that something is just getting along with other people well.

It takes a lot of effort and skill, for example, to do something as a team and explain your views to others.
Some people are just more naturally gifted at it than others. They might have a good temperament and patience for example.

I agree with that.
But saying nobody is better than anyone is just untrue.
You can't say Albert Einstein wasn't better than Anders Breivik.
Therefore, the statement is false.

[paxmao]

That's just not true.
A lot of people are 'better' than other people.

I don't agree. Valuating people is subjective and everyone has their own characteristics that they value.
You can't judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree.
If those people lived long enough to survive and reproduce for millions of years, there must be something they are pretty good at, even if that something is just getting along with other people well.

It takes a lot of effort and skill, for example, to do something as a team and explain your views to others.
Some people are just more naturally gifted at it than others. They might have a good temperament and patience for example.

I agree with that.
But saying nobody is better than anyone is just untrue.
You can't say Albert Einstein wasn't better than Anders Breivik.
Therefore, the statement is false.

Obviously there are some people that are better than other for specific tasks. It would be rare that anyone is better than other for absolutely  everything. Einstein was not a particularly good tennis player (and relied a lot on his wife for the math btw) if you want an example. I am no better than a six year old average Chinese child at speaking Chinese.

So, yes, some people would understand complex things faster than others, but does should not make you feel superior, particularly if you can't communicate you ideas to others. I have seen many highly regarded College teachers argue that their students were not "smart enough" because they did not understand their lessons. Often, those students had gone through a rigorous admission process and were among the most brilliant in the age group - they had no intellectual handicaps at all.

It was obvious that those teachers, who were brilliant in research were also poor communicators and lacked the ability to teach others. Where they better than others? This post reminds me of that situation. As I said before, if you lack the skill to make things simple and assume that everyone is on the same page as you when speaking is not that you are better, is that you suck at communication.

You have two options:

a) Get help from someone (better than you) for your communications.
b) Get people that are in the same page as you interested in your ideas. If you can't do that, there is usually a good reason.

[xtraelv]

 
Question: How do I learn to communicate with "normal people" when things are so obvious to me, but almost no one else understands?

Any fool can make something complicated. It takes a genius to make it simple. - Woody Guthrie

There is a risk that if you understand things that other people don't that you will be hailed as a genius.
It doesn't mean that you necessarily are a genius. It just means that others don't understand it.
It is not in human nature to think of yourself as a fool unless you have the critical ability to recognize it.

Gardner proposed eight abilities considered as intelligence:

musical-rhythmic,
visual-spatial,
verbal-linguistic,
logical-mathematical,
bodily-kinesthetic,
interpersonal,
intrapersonal, and
naturalistic. (added slightly later - initially he proposed 7)

He later suggested that existential and moral intelligences may also be worthy of inclusion

Someone who has strong academic abilities may perform well in the  visual-spatial, verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence categories but poorly in the
interpersonal and intrapersonal categories if they are having difficulty communicating and relating to others.

Someone lacking such skills would also find it difficult to understand how they are lacking those skills.

It is hard to recognize other peoples interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence if you lack it yourself. Just like they have difficulty replicating your academic successes.

It is also worthwhile exploring where you are on the Autistic spectrum. (Everyone is on the spectrum - that is why it is considered a spectrum)

[jeffthebaker]

Most of what I believe has already been covered, but would like to share a bit of a personal anecdote.

When I was in high school, I would explain things like my high level math courses, Bitcoin technicals, etc. in terminology that anyone without similar experience would understand. At the time, I thought I was just smarter- "different" if you will. In reality, I was explaining a foreign concept in foreign terms. I didn't mean to be so cryptic, but my way of communication was simply confusing, not too elevated for my peers- just poor communication.

Now I've spent a couple years at a university where everyone thinks they are smarter and more special than their peers. Everyone studies their specific discipline, and many of them (especially science majors) explain their high-level coursework and findings in terminology foreign to anyone who doesn't have the same educational background. Now, some people would just respond to the conceited Chemistry student talking about their lab combining ATP mollecules to react the XYZ yada yada yada... that they aren't smart enough/don't understand Chemistry. But in reality they just took a green chemical from test tube a and combined it with blue chemical from b to make foam.

The truly smart students are the ones who are able to explain their studies to those in other discplines in a manner that they can understand. It's about having an elevated level of knowledge of reading and adapting to the people around you. Of course, anyone not taking Computer Science wouldn't understand the code behind a website I put together for a class, but I can explain to them in common phrasing and analogies to convey the gist of what I'm doing- which they can understand.

The true mark of intelligence is being able to convey elevated thoughts and ideas with those who don't have a similar experience in regards to said thoughts.

[Who_]

Easy. Fix your grammar and don't write a sentence in the form of a puzzle for the reader to solve.

But he likes puzzles.

I think this is tailored to somebody that can think abstractly.

For example, my brain just connects all available data to create a story that is connected. When I think about something, there is no difference between what is happening around me and my thoughts. People around me having their own conversations contribute to my thinking, sometimes in very personal (but detached) ways. Since they do not have the awareness of my thoughts, my brain believes it is perfectly normal to consider their speaking as my thinking.

This is a bias, but it is one that allows for this type of abstract thinking to occur, and it's beyond me. The only thing I can do is be aware, and mitigate some of the damage, and also not take it too seriously, because it's not meant to be serious, but rather stimulating or challenging.

I agree with the grammar advice because you can be a clearer user of language. I think that OP is confused about some things, and is trying to make sense of their world, even if it means talking incoherently to a bunch of strangers (some of which I guess are friends at this point) on the internet.

[seoincorporation]

I used to think about myself as an intelligent (over the media) guy. I always see my reflection on the mirror from this perspective, always having the sense of everyone else is far more stupid than myself. Well, I've been told that since I was a child, so I bought it, and grew-up under the consciousness of my own "intelligent". I spent most of my time in front of a computer, milking knowledge, "teaching" others through my own ego.

One day I met a girl (always, a girl), a really brilliant one. She took me to the mountains, for it was her favorite place, she also rescues people, combat fires, a kind of a female hero. When I was in the mountains I came to realize how ignorant I was, for she was able to heat herself, to find food, to take a look at the clouds and know with certainty if it was going to rain; she knew the animal's behaviour, how to communicate with them, where to go and which places to avoid in order to be secures. She made a fire-hole with wet wood, even when I thought it wasn't impossible, she warmed us. She also climbs the mountain with grace and feels amazed at every single plant in the way.

Since that experience, I realized how stupid I was. I almost pass over a cascabel serpent, I almost fall into a bad step, of course, to me would be impossible to build a fire in such conditions (cold and wet), I would probably die if it wasn't for her. But she always was patient to me, she always with a smile, said "Don't worry, I will take care", or, "Don't worry, I make the fire, just relax". I couldn't believe how could she be in such a calm in this environment. But she told me something awesome, she told me "I love nature, for it is sincere. You just need to learn how to watch and hear and be respectful".

So, am I such an intelligent guy, a guy that panic in such a situation? All my programming or chemical knowledge is that for any use if I can't survive in my own environment, as the animal I am? If I can't even understand how the clouds behave even having them in front of my own eyes, giving me an infinite amount of information?

I've changed a lot due to this experience. I was afraid of my own life, so I let down my own ego and began to listen to her, to believe in her, for in her hands was my life.
The most you think about yourself being different or a genius, or about everyone else being stupid, the most you need to put yourself into a completely different situation, leave your comfort area and explore.

 Probably you will learn then that intelligence is related to circumstance.

[gentlemand]

I defecate from the ramparts and expect the peons below to theorise as to my meanings. Perhaps it'll stir something in their tiny minds.

Beyond that there are arenas where I'm vastly superior to the people around me, and areas where they're insuperably superior to me. That's the human race for ya.

I would regard someone who lorded over me in a certain area as a penis just as I'd expect them to think that if I pulled the same. If someone isn't mindful of that balance then they're a penis.

Stupidity is something I often think about. I've come to the conclusion that there really aren't many truly stupid people in the world. There are however legions of people who are lazy, mindless, selfish and addicted to instant gratification. Those qualities breed stupidity but it's not inherent.