<p>No, but they will have little determination to help others. I didn’t say they were mean. Just arrogant, haughty, superior - even in front of others (this might qualify as mean, actually, when you outsmart your ‘friends’ to make yourself feel superior). You know the phrase: “You’re measured by how you treat your inferiors, not your superiors?” Yeah, that. If the crowd doesn’t like you generally, you won’t get anywhere. If you don’t have determination to help, same concept.
Modesty is such an underrated quality these days. You won’t find an arrogant person going out of his way to make others’ lives easier. Those who do, however, is what MIT looks for, as I gathered, and rightly so.</p>
<p>Also, I fail to see how arrogance is self-correcting. It’s one of the most despicable traits a person can have in my opinion.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to suggest that smart people are mean, or more likely to be mean, or anything like that- and if I did, then that was my error. It was the same advice I would give anyone.</p>
<p>I think arrogance is self-correcting, because it’s usually difficult for a person to remain arrogant when surrounded by equally talented people. I guess arrogance might not be self-correcting if a person were rejected from MIT on the grounds of arrogance, and then went someplace where his/her self-image was unchallenged.</p>
<p>That’s a horrible thing to say. I think you might be an example of what we’re speaking of. Very bright kids don’t know what it feels like to be stupid; they know how it feels like to be someone who isn’t as smart as them. The “really dumb people” that you talk about are not mean people–a majority of non-geniuses are really nice and hardworking. The only mean people are the ones who know they are smarter than average, but think they can get away with acting better than everyone else.</p>
<p>I’m don’t want to offend you, but it sounds like you’re an arrogant person that finds himself around a lot of other arrogant, but smart, people. I speak from experience.</p>
<p>I didn’t get the e-joke either. I’m a parent. I guess it’s been revealed – it’s a generational thing! (lol @ the “Not meanly, please!” - post #15)</p>
<p>I really liked your post #12, QuantMech. Intriguing. I had the same sorts of thoughts when I read the references to smart people being mean people. In my experience, really bright people are not mean people.</p>
<p>I was very intrigued with the study you cited.
</p>
<p>That happens to be a good synopsis of what I have observed throughout my life. I have always been interested in this subject, for some reason. I have no formal credentials for making any observations. It has just always intrigued me and I’ve thought a lot about it – for decades.</p>
<p>Looking through my life’s lenses, “mean people” tend to come from some sort of “privileged class.” It’s even worse if they are at the same time entrenched in a “homogenous majority.” Everyone around them thinks like they think, reiterates the opinions they have, and reaffirms the same life experiences and beliefs. The kind of mean person I’m talking about seems to conclude that their perspective is the only perspective. Others who see the world differently or draw different conclusions are either wrong or stupid. To me, people in this group tend to lack compassion, empathy, and perspective, while at the same time strongly believing that they have all the answers. Life has somehow been easier and more validated for them. Have they somehow concluded that they deserve the credit? What I have thought of as “privileged class” could be what your cited study refers to as “social status.” In my mind, it can be in terms of anything: money, job status, race, gender, culture – basically, the degree to which one’s life is made easier and more validated by whatever external forces.</p>
<p>A sweeping generalization, I know. But it’s just something I’ve come to notice in my own life … I’m still collecting data, lol. Maybe I’ll change my mind someday?</p>
<p>It seems to me that hardship and exposure to diversity breed compassion, tolerance, and kindness. Maybe because people get a sense of their relative, individual insignificance, in a way, as well as a sense of the gifts they’ve been given (and not necessarily “earned”)? </p>
<p>I have seen a LOT of unkind postings on CC. (More so on other forums than the MIT forum, I’ve thought. In fact, I’ve often been impressed by the level of kindness here on MIT’s forums.) I suppose my observations could be summed up in this way: People who think they have the world by the tail tend to be meaner – less compassionate, more arrogant, more entitled. Perhaps CC draws a larger percentage of people who think they have the world by the tail? And, there’s always the “luxury” of anonymity here on CC, which tends to bring out the mean-factor.</p>
<p>In general, I do not think uber-bright kids are mean or in danger of becoming mean. All of the super bright kids I can think of in my kids’ social circles are actually rather unaggressive and unassuming. I don’t really know why. Maybe because they’ve had years of experience downplaying their gifts in order to fit in? (I haven’t spent as much time thinking about this one … but maybe that will be my new pursuit! )</p>
<p>I do think that a lot of young people of above-average intelligence and privileged backgrounds are at a higher risk of being mean, arrogant, and intolerant. For most of them, their time will come. As they learn more about their own limitations and the rest of the world, their attitudes will adjust. (I agree with your concept of self-correcting.)</p>
<p>To the OP, regarding his/her brother: As a parent who loves kids in general, but who definitely doesn’t have all the answers … your brother’s story somehow makes me feel a little sad. He’s so young! I sure hope he’s enjoying his life and trying out all sorts of interesting pursuits, not just math. If he’s loving math so much just for the sake of loving math, then I’m very happy for him! And it’s cool that he has a goal in mind. But my goodness … to be so focused on one college and one subject at such a young age … well, I hope he remains emotionally healthy and happy. That’s what it should be all about at his age. Life is about so much more than what college you go to or how quickly you finish the math sequence. You sound like a great big brother or sister, though! Good for you!! :)</p>
<p>Very thoughtful post, SimpleLife. Well worth reading and re-reading.</p>
<p>To offer just a brief corrigendum to my thoughts on arrogance: Arrogance based on intellect tends to be self-correcting for a person in a challenging environment. I will add: Arrogance based on looks tends to be self-correcting, but the time-scale is longer. Arrogance based on membership in the “privileged class”? I have to assume that this is also self-correcting over the course of a lifetime, but it may take longer for reality to sink in. Incidentally, that is a very useful term, SimpleLife, and the range of privilege you note sweeps in a lot of us. (In fact, my eyes keep opening further, at this relatively late stage.) </p>
<p>I’ll second SimpleLife’s advice to the OP, too. Your younger brother sounds extremely smart. Three suggestions that might be useful: he could look for an area where he enjoys creating or inventing something (could be mathematics, could be something else), he might try building or repairing things, and he could look around for opportunities to effect positive changes in his community. The last are somewhat limited at his age, but could be found.</p>
<p>Arrogance doesn’t go away. It amplifies. I’ve seen this time and again. Very, very few arrogant people are humbled at some point in their lives. I’m sure that if someone arrogant ends up at Harvard, at some point, he/she will realize he/she can’t flaunt his/her abilities in front of the Harvard class, who are likely equal or superior in ability. But outside of that environment, arrogance might amplify. I’m sure there are some whose arrogance goes away completely, but I think that they’re the minority.
This is still my opinion, of course, based on what I’ve seen around me. If anyone has any specific examples to the contrary, I’d be more than willing to listen.</p>
<p>I think it is both unusual and sad if a person is still arrogant at 50. I’m willing to allow for the possibility that there are some such people, on paths that don’t cross mine. The idea of someone still being arrogant at 80–even sadder, except for the fact that it borders on the comical.</p>
<p>I agree with this post. In my experience the people who are the most arrogant are the ones that are Type-A overachievers, but do so partly not on merit but by being aggressive. They are the guys in the top 10 of their class who can get high scores, but aren’t really that interested in academics nor do they admire it. These are the people who think they are amazing because they can become a doctor or a lawyer, and are not smart enough to know that there is a lot more out there. This is why I cringe when I think that MIT, in order to “improve” the character of its undergrad population, looks at community service and personality. The people who are more aggressive at age 18 tend to be better at self-promotion, more colorful (and thus better interviews), tend to be aggressive enough to manipulate people into helping them with EC/community service projects. </p>
<p>You know, I don’t want to bring other schools into this, but for years MIT students have had a reputation for being nicer than their counterparts at Harvard. This is true despite the fact that MIT used to base their admissions decisions way more on intellect than Harvard did. I think it’s because being aggressive did not improve admission results at MIT, but it did (and does) do so at Harvard.</p>
<p>^Interesting twist, collegealum. I, personally, LIKE MIT’s emphasis on improving the character of their undergraduate population by looking at their sense of community and their personality. It’s one of my favorite things about MIT. But, as you’ve explained it, I can understand why the same concept makes you cringe.</p>
<p>I think MIT’s college application is one of the best I’ve seen. I can see why and how their short-answer essay questions would tend to reveal a candidate’s real qualities. Between the interviews, the letters of rec, the application, and all the other factors they look at, I can see why their process would be most effective for recruiting the kind of person they’re looking for.</p>
<p>I look at the Common App my son did for some other colleges. It’s cookie-cutter. Ironically, I think it’s harder for a good kid with great character and great scores to stand out in a crowd based on that application. One’s scores might stand out … but how would a college then distinguish between one person with great scores and another person with great scores? Nothing on that application reveals much about who the candidates really are. And, in my opinion, it’s much easier to “snow” the review committee with laundry lists of your accomplishments rather than revealing who you really are. THAT’s where the top ten-percenters with little substance can manipulate their way into a college or “earn” higher scholarships.</p>
<p>There are, after all, top 10 kids who are very nice, very kind, serve their community, and NOT type-A. The uber-bright can naturally rise to the top of their classes without being over-achievers. In fact, my impression is that MIT is looking for “regular people” who are at the top of their classes. MIT seems to seek out genuine people, I think. (A large part of my impression comes from their website, their webcasts, and their admissions blogs. The people who blog for them are amazing to me, to a person! … genuine, kind, balanced, smart, down-to-earth. I get the strong sense they’re looking for people like that, and that their process is well-set-up to find them. )</p>
<p>It’s always interesting to me when two people agree on the same concept and yet draw different conclusions based on that same idea. That’s what makes the world go 'round, I suppose.</p>
<p>^^^^Once again, I agree with you, QuantMech. It is both somewhat unusual and sad for a person to reach age 50 and remain arrogant. Life has a way of softening people and smoothing the rough edges … because it’s hard, and hardships tend to “humanize” people.</p>
<p>I attended an elite, very homogenous college, decades ago. I was intrigued by the level of cruelty displayed by some of my peers. As our stay at the college went on, the mean ones became meaner. They seemed to bring it out in each other. Like … Lord of the Flies. All the while, “the public” viewed those who attended our college as the best of the best. We attended required ethics classes weekly for two years, monthly after that. And in the midst of that, the mean ones were calculatingly cruel and uncompassionate to those who they viewed as the “have nots.” They didn’t seem to see their victims as fellow human beings. And they didn’t seem to draw any connection between what we were learning in our ethics classes and what they were choosing to do outside of class. These people thought they had the world by the tail. Arrogance prevailed.</p>
<p>Three decades later, I still work with many of those same people. Boy, have they changed! Raising kids tends to bring people down a notch, as they come to realize there really is no such thing as perfection (in themselves, nor in their kids), and that everything is definitely not under their control. Hardships in life – layoffs, financial burdens, marriage problems, divorces, chronic illnesses and death – all of those things bring people down a notch. I think the vast majority of people do outgrow their arrogance as they age. It’s a good thing, too! :)</p>
<p>@QSCXQQ, I apologize - my post was meant to be half joking and thus deliberately exaggerating terminology. But here is my serious point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The key place I greatly disagree is when you say ‘know’ … I would replace that with ‘think’. </p>
<p>I made my post in mock demonstration of what generalizing about any party sounds like, buy it had a real point too. I find that arrogance has more to do with perceived superiority than actual ability. Someone who is actually smart but has been humbled by difficult work can be very pleasant. Take a look at many of the MIT alumni posting here. </p>
<p>People who are dumb and think they are smart are a terror.</p>
<p>Geniuses vary greatly in how nice they are. I think they can be preoccupied with intellectual endeavors, but I condone that since it is clearly a sensible place to put their time. I think they tend not to be mean - I mean they generally know their abilities are very unusual and don’t expect others to be similar. </p>
<p>About my supposed arrogance - I am very confused why you would think so. I do not like arrogance, and I am amused when people try to judge so quickly.</p>
<p>Here, collegealum has basically made my point in much more graceful terms than I did. </p>
<p>Again, I was not actually arguing that ‘very bright’ and ‘dumb’ are the two categories that should be considered. More, I was amused at how people seem to consider two ridiculous extremes (the nice non-genius and the snarky genius), so I tried to make a point while also throwing in my own extreme terminology.</p>
(lol @ the “Not meanly, please!” - post 
)</p>