Yeah, but in my experience people who are intelligent see eye-to-eye more easily, which would help negate some personality differences. This is based off of a friend for elementary school who was basically what the kid I originally described was. However, while he was social and outgoing, and I was completely opposite, we got along well because we saw eye-to-eye and understood each other.
Okay, kid, listen...there's really no soft way of saying this.
You don't know shit.
Frankly, it was evident when you tried to contribute to a discussion about attitudes towards adult, university educated professionals
using an example of a fucking high school kid. Your little anecdote is worthless for proving anything.
It became even more
evident when you presented your little theory on how "smart" people supposedly get along better with each other than with "non-smart" ones, which just shows how little you know about, you know, actual human interaction.
As others mentioned, people get along based on personality and interests, not IQ. If you don't have anything to talk about with each other, then you can both have an IQ of 180 and you'd never, ever, become friends.
Of course, none of that actually has any relevance to the discussion, which was about real intellectuals, not high-school kids.
I found the majority of the so called "intellectuals" at my school to show similar behavior, not just the kid in my story. I used him because it was the best example I had, and the one easiest to write about.
High school kids are not intellectuals, no matter how elite the school or how smart they think they are.
About the extrapolation, also, isn't it perfectly normal and valid to take a section of the population, note trends and then extrapolate these trends to the larger populace? I know it is done in university level studies everywhere, and I don't see how what I did was any different (aside from the obvious informality).
The informality is exactly the fucking problem. You take an extremely small sample of the population from an age bracket of 14 to 18 years old
and then extrapolate their behavior and attitudes to a population of university educated professionals 25 years old and up.
One could also mention the lack of a control group (how is the behavior of your selected sample different from the rest of the high school population? Is it different at all?) and the fact it was a qualitative "study", not a quantitative one.
Frankly, you'd get failed with epic grandeur if you spouted this bullshit to a university professor. Please remember that in case you ever have to take an oral exam in the real world.
It makes sense that you can't extrapolate based off of one isolated incident or individual, but if everyone does it in your section of the populace, it makes equal sense that a trend is evident and applicable to a greater number of people.
No, it's not, because you try to apply trends from one population to a completely different one. Don't try to pretend your little observations are equal to a university study, because then I will just have to call you a moron.