There are different intelligences, I think. Not being a douchebag requires some level of emotional intelligence. That can come with maturity but not everyone matures as they age.
I was something of a reactionary douchebag and I would not have matured ‘on my own’ because I got many of my views from family members. I wasn’t horrible and neither are they. I’m talking about things like thinking that everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That perspective doesn’t leave much patience for people who have less privilege. So a relatively innocuous view at home becomes douchebaggery in public, when people are telling you how hard things are and you reply that they need to work harder. Or they tell you about ill health and you tell them they shouldn’t have let themselves get ill in the first place.
I only noticed the problem because friends called me out. That might not work for everyone. I’m incredibly grateful for those friends!
Anyway, my broader point is that ‘intelligence’ is hard to define, so let’s talk about knowledge instead. Someone can know a lot about math, science, literature, caring, etc, etc. All knowledge is socially constructed in one way or another. (The type of social construction is up for debate—there are different theories.) The education system focuses on subject specific knowledge. This leaves people feeling or seeming very ‘intelligent’ about their subject.
But learning one thing doesn’t mean you automatically learn everything else, except for some crossover skills and knowledge.
Unfortunately, class society doesn’t create an abundance of opportunities for learning much about care/empathy/emotional intelligence. Apparently, people who read a lot of fiction have greater emotional intelligence but I don’t know how you’d measure that.
It seems to me there are a few ways to avoid being a douchebag. Being social with good people (and avoiding toxic masculinity), because society will kick you in the teeth when you say the wrong thing to the wrong person, metaphorically and/or literally. Studying a curriculum of care, which could be standalone or woven into another subject’s curriculum. It’s standard practice for marxist and anarchist knowledge, I’d say. Otherwise, it’s an afterthought.
Two conclusions. One, the fact that someone is a douchebag suggests they haven’t yet had the fortune to learn otherwise. Two, the fact that someone is not a douchebag means they have had that good fortune. Which maybe suggests that you could see the douchebag as less privileged in some respects than the non-douchebag. But maybe this is me continuing to be a douchebag by other means, turning the logic off ‘intelligent douchebag’ on its head.
Or these are the ramblings of a very tired redtea.
There are different intelligences, I think. Not being a douchebag requires some level of emotional intelligence. That can come with maturity but not everyone matures as they age.
I was something of a reactionary douchebag and I would not have matured ‘on my own’ because I got many of my views from family members. I wasn’t horrible and neither are they. I’m talking about things like thinking that everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That perspective doesn’t leave much patience for people who have less privilege. So a relatively innocuous view at home becomes douchebaggery in public, when people are telling you how hard things are and you reply that they need to work harder. Or they tell you about ill health and you tell them they shouldn’t have let themselves get ill in the first place.
I only noticed the problem because friends called me out. That might not work for everyone. I’m incredibly grateful for those friends!
Anyway, my broader point is that ‘intelligence’ is hard to define, so let’s talk about knowledge instead. Someone can know a lot about math, science, literature, caring, etc, etc. All knowledge is socially constructed in one way or another. (The type of social construction is up for debate—there are different theories.) The education system focuses on subject specific knowledge. This leaves people feeling or seeming very ‘intelligent’ about their subject.
But learning one thing doesn’t mean you automatically learn everything else, except for some crossover skills and knowledge.
Unfortunately, class society doesn’t create an abundance of opportunities for learning much about care/empathy/emotional intelligence. Apparently, people who read a lot of fiction have greater emotional intelligence but I don’t know how you’d measure that.
It seems to me there are a few ways to avoid being a douchebag. Being social with good people (and avoiding toxic masculinity), because society will kick you in the teeth when you say the wrong thing to the wrong person, metaphorically and/or literally. Studying a curriculum of care, which could be standalone or woven into another subject’s curriculum. It’s standard practice for marxist and anarchist knowledge, I’d say. Otherwise, it’s an afterthought.
Two conclusions. One, the fact that someone is a douchebag suggests they haven’t yet had the fortune to learn otherwise. Two, the fact that someone is not a douchebag means they have had that good fortune. Which maybe suggests that you could see the douchebag as less privileged in some respects than the non-douchebag. But maybe this is me continuing to be a douchebag by other means, turning the logic off ‘intelligent douchebag’ on its head.
Or these are the ramblings of a very tired redtea.