Ask Two Geniuses with Dr. Christian Sorensen and Matthew Scillitani on Early and Late Bloomers, The Gifted Arrow, Marriage, and Dysfunction: Independent Metaphysician & Philosopher; Social Media Marketer & Web Developer (2)

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/01/08

Abstract

Rick Rosner and I conduct a conversational series entitled Ask A Genius on a variety of subjects through In-Sight Publishing on the personal and professional website for Rick. This series with Christian and Matthew build on this idea. Dr. Christian Sorensen earned a score at 185+, i.e., at least 186, on the WAIS-R. He is an expert in Metaphysics and Philosophy. Matthew Scillitani earned a score at 190, on Psychometric Qrosswords. He is an expert in Social Media Marketing and Web Development. Both scores on a standard deviation of 15. A sigma of ~5.67+ for Christian – a general intelligence rarity of more than 1 in 136,975,305, at least 1 in 202,496,482 – and a sigma of 6.00 for Matt – a general intelligence rarity of 1 in 1,009,976,678. Neither splitting hairs nor a competition here; we agreed to a discussion, hopefully, for the edification of the audience here. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population. This amounts to a joint interview or conversation with Dr. Christian Sorensen, Matthew Scillitani, and myself. They discuss: mental illness developing in reaction to the environment; placing all attribution externally; the early bloomers; the late bloomers; the cases of individuals with profound general intelligence while becoming hyper-normal; identify the gifted, the highly gifted, the exceptionally gifted, the profoundly gifted, and the immeasurably gifted; friendships and dating; marriage and having a family; and psychological dysfunction.

Keywords: Christian Sorensen, dating, family, friendship, genius, marriage, Matthew Scillitani, mental health, relationships.

Ask Two Geniuses with Dr. Christian Sorensen and Matthew Scillitani on Early and Late Bloomers, The Gifted Arrow, Marriage, and Dysfunction: Independent Metaphysician & Philosopher; Social Media Marketer & Web Developer (2)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, we’ve set out some personal opinions of mental wellness and mental illness, youth and adulthood, a prodigy and a genius, early bloomers and late bloomers, formal psychiatric conditions and genius, relationships and genius, intelligence and IQ, and some desired directions for the discussion.

Mental wellness and mental illness seem to represent a multifactorial set of ranges with either as a set of antipodes one set from another set depending on the variables taken into account. Within this context, prodigies and the gifted develop asynchronously.

Their emotional development does not match the rapid intellectual development, typically. Does this seem to relate to the potential for mental illness developing in reaction to the environment, e.g., feeling constantly out of place, misunderstood, rejected, etc.?

Dr. Christian Sorensen[1]*: I think that the root cause, that triggers in prodigies and geniuses, the development of mental illnesses,  is rather the reaction from the environment, than the asynchronous development between emotionality and intellectuality, since if the issue as such, is thought from an inverse logic, that is to say, by conserving  the asynchrony, but at the same time,  converting environment variables to their opposites, as independent ones, then  it is possible to deduce, that the development of mental illnesses is not only reversible, but also that  environment variables, can act as  resilience factors, which would therefore means, that asynchrony in itself,  is indifferent, while  environment is not, because meanwhile the former, from my point of view, is  ontophylogenetic, and in consequence,  paradoxically is always ego syntonical, the last instead, since is what I’m going to  name ego interfering, never  will be a priori harmonizable.

Matthew Scillitani[2],[3]*:Absolutely. Intellectually developing faster than one’s peers often comes at the cost of alienation, bullying, and rejection. There is probably a moderate positive correlation between being intellectually and emotionally mature, but it is not perfect, and the children whose intellect exceeds their emotional maturity are disposed for neurosis. This isn’t all bad though. Social rejection is usually necessary for an intelligent child to develop into a genius. It’s pressure on the coal that makes a diamond.

Jacobsen: Any thoughts on a common sentiment of feeling bad as, things not working out for, the gifted in personal and/or professional life while placing all attribution externally? As in, they do not consider or own the possibility of having a rotten personality.

Sorensen: I think that with giftedness, it is not a matter of having or not a broken personality, but rather, it has to do with the question of  owning, an absence of  willingness, for adapting  successfully with the environment, that concretely expresses, as a denial of modulation, with respect to critical attitudes, that  intend to refute  objectified realities through  supposed believed truths.

Scillitani: I think it is a scape-goat to say external factors, like one’s peers, are always the cause of the genius’ misery. In truth, the genius is very weird. Unfortunately, so weird that they will never fit in and conform to cultural behaviour standards. It’s not nice, but many people avoid odd people like the plague, including the genius. They’ll eat his food but not dine with him, so to speak.

Jacobsen: For the early bloomers, any thoughts on those who merely bloom early and other explode, as prodigies, early? What is the dividing line there?

Sorensen: I think that prodigies, as such, do not exist.  What exists instead, are gifted,  to whom the environment, gives  or not,  the opportunity to manifest their cognitive potentialities. Therefore, the dividing line, is not between prodigy and the non-prodigies, but rather between,  giftedness and a particular environment, which in itself, may or may not facilitate  that prodigiousness takes place.

Scillitani: The dividing line is probably just the moment the precocious child’s skill or intellect falls close to or at average for their age group. This seems extremely typical of girls, by the way. Young girls both start and end development earlier than boys. The average girl is a year or two more cognitively developed than boys until around age 16 when the boy’s catch up and both meet at the mean.

Jacobsen: For the late bloomers, what would seem like the upper age limit for this if any?

Sorensen: For those that bloom late, the limit more than being associated to age, would be given by a determined condition, that I’m going to denominate coefficient of deterioration, which  as it rises, and approaches to the value of 1, as maximum, will  proportionally be more restrictive, with respect to the possibility of hatching.

Scillitani: Probably the end of puberty. If someone hasn’t ‘bloomed’ by then they’re almost certainly not ever going to.

Jacobsen: What about the cases of individuals with profound general intelligence while becoming hyper-normal, as in over-bland and adjusted to norms to a fault?

Sorensen: In fact, this can happen  up to the level of profound general intelligence, therefore above that point, which actually coincides  with unmeasurable geniuses, it is extremely rare for it to occurred, since the last would imply a logical counter-sense.

Scillitani: That’s surprisingly really common. Most, maybe 3 in 5, highly intelligent adults seem to be hyper-conformists. This is speculative, but it may be that intelligent people are much more efficient at behavioural conditioning because they learn faster. And, because we are constantly conditioned to behave in certain ways by our schools, peers, parents, ‘experts’, employers, and so on, they’re adapting to the customs of nearly every group they’re in. That doesn’t mean they actually believe what they’re doing is right though – only that they should best do it for one reason or another.

Jacobsen: In personal life, how do you observe or identify the gifted, the highly gifted, the exceptionally gifted, the profoundly gifted, and the immeasurably gifted? Or, how might you do this?

Sorensen: The first three, are generally highly successful individuals, both professionally and socially, nevertheless, they  will use to have as common trait, an intense autoerotic fixation on intelligence.  The profoundly gifted, on the other hand, frequently  also are   successful professionally, however, unlike the previous ones,  tend to have more social adaptation difficulties, although in the fields of knowledge and creativity,  they used to be recognized for their  contributions, which sometimes can be considered genial,  though however, they  mostly exhibit, the presence of  the same   autoerotic issue, in relation to their failed child psycho-sexual development. Regarding unmeasurable geniuses,  it is highly probable instead,  that there will never be the possibility of knowing  any of them, and contrary to the rest of the gifted, they are never going to be socially adapted, nor  professionally successful. Generally, these geniuses,  ironize with the measurements of intelligence,  because they mock of psychometric constructs, since  perceive in them, a sign of cognitive clumsiness, that reflects the classic poor functioning, of the types of thinkings, that are operationally concrete. Likewise, and  rarely, except if it’s posthumously, their achievements never are going to be recognized as genialities, and almost always, will exhibit self-referentiality, as a characteristic feature, when they express themselves ideationally,  since dispense with the ideas of others, and they do not idealize anyone.

Scillitani: I don’t think I actively do that too much. If we try to identify people’s intelligence by their actions, it’s actually pretty difficult. Intelligent people still make mistakes, are still able to have delusions, can still be impulsive or unethical, or have almost any other negative behaviour or belief. We have to just use our best judgement when trying to determine that. When we’re close to someone and hear their more private thoughts it usually becomes obvious whether they’re smart or not.

Jacobsen: Does higher intelligence help or hinder friendships and dating? Does this ever become an impediment at a certain level of intelligence or in certain circumstances? It is reported more intelligent and accomplished women have a harder time finding life partners, as an example.

Sorensen: I think that with respect to higher intelligence,  in relation to friendships and datings, there is a sort of Gauss curve, since as intelligence level increases, interpersonal relationships are facilitated, nevertheless at a certain point, that coincides with  profound giftedness, the interaction between both variables, begins  to become more  difficult and enters into a growing inertia, since  the increase in intelligence beyond that level, is correlated as fact, with the appearance of certain personality patterns, that have to do with obsessive traits, and impatient behaviors , that are related in turn,  with moody attitudes, which lead to provoke in others, diverse chain reactions of rejection and boredom.   Highly intelligent women, instead,  present a different pattern,  when it comes to having  difficulties in finding lasting partners, since the cause actually lies in themselves, because rather  than not being the  affected ones, due to  what for me is the minimalism syndrome, caused in men, subjectively speaking and not necessarily as gender,  they suffer instead, of what I will name  the syndrome of the enchanted prince, which pushes women, to a state of chronic disappointments and  disenchantments. I believe, that the underlying issue at this level, is  structurally speaking, that female love is essentially  a sort of  intellectualizing motor, and therefore needs for its existence, of a necessary condition, that has to do with  the feeling of admiration, towards who is by her side, since  beyond her will, the last , is the only setting in which, she can feels  emotionally and comfortably committed, in order to project herself, in a couple relationship.

Scillitani: I think it’s probably helpful to be smarter, especially in dating since figuring out how romantic relationships work is itself a really difficult puzzle to solve. When combined with a psychiatric disorder though, there are still serious problems that can cause both friendships and dating to be almost impossible. As for your example that more intelligent women have a harder time finding life partners; that may not be because of their intelligence. I imagine smart women also focus more on their education and careers and those things take away from time that could be spent searching for a romantic partner.

Jacobsen: Does higher intelligence help or hinder marriage and having a family with children? You’re both married. So, this can be an interesting take across generations too.

Sorensen: Categorically speaking, the difficulty, is with those intelligences  that are above   profound giftedness.  According to this context, it could be stated, that  there would not be any   iatrogenic effects,  and that even a higher intelligence, can  be a facilitating force,  if positively and  only positively,  woman has an emotional coefficient, significantly higher than the intellectual coefficient of her husband, since the last, would be the  resilience core, that  makes possible for peace and harmony to prevail, and  reign, not only with   children,  but also as family and at home.

Scillitani: I’m sure it’s helped me with my marriage and probably helps others as well. I’m not sure about the children part because I’ve not yet had any but we raise our pet dachshund very well I think.

Jacobsen: Vincent van Gogh cut his ear off in a fit. Also, Abraham Lincoln, Leo Tolstoy, and Charles Dickens may have had depression. Ludwig von Beethoven, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and Winston Churchill may have had bipolar disorder. Edvard Munch may have had panic attacks. Michelangelo may have had autism. Charles Darwin may have had agoraphobia. Kurt Godel may have had persecutory delusions. Isaac Newton may have had autism, bipolar, and/or schizophrenia. It’s a mixed bag. Leonardo Da Vinci, at the same clip, didn’t seem to suffer from mental illness; only the stresses coming from the persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church, and its influence on the culture in anti-homosexual sentiments and theology. Some claim ADHD due to procrastination. However, many of the productions by Da Vinci took long-term focus in the moment and long-term planning over many years. Thus, this lattermost seems unlikely to me. At the higher levels of intelligence and achievement, we seem to note trends in some cases of mental illness correlated with emotional and psychological dysfunction. Does profoundly high intelligence seem as if a nitro on psychological dysfunction? That is, if present, it becomes more extreme than ordinarily.

Sorensen: Profound giftedness, from my point of view, is a relatively low level of intelligence,  about which, I don’t have much to say, therefore I will refer exclusively, from the perspective of unmeasurable giftedness. I consider that only those psychological disorders, that are of psychogenic etiology, as opposed to those that are of endogenous origin, fundamentally biological ones, and in consequence, that   do not affect the capacity of  judgement regarding reality, are in general, the ones  aggravated not per se,  but indirectly, by levels of  intelligence   above   profound giftedness, and therefore, as long as they refer only, to the traits of  certain typologies of personality. In this sense, such level of intelligence, would accentuate mental disorders,  since  cognition, in comparison  to their lower levels, would allow to have a greater degree of insight regarding dysfunctional behaviors, which if it’s added to an ironic and irreverent attitude,  it should then lead, through what I will denominate as projective mediative resource, to a increased self-consciousness,  that  would act as a double vision mirror, which enables  to mock either of oneself or of  others, depending if what is ultimately searched, is  the catharsis to compensate circularly, the rejection felt from the environment.

Scillitani: Intelligence and psychiatric illness are a very dysfunctional but interesting couple. Being intelligent probably makes psychiatric disorders not as severe, but when they’re configured perfectly it causes genius to happen. If Van Gogh, for example, were not smart then he’d just be a madman who cut off his ear. Instead, he’s a genius painter who cut off his ear. All geniuses have a touch of madness in them, I think.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Independent Metaphysician and Philosopher.

[2] Member, Giga Society.

[3] Individual Publication Date: January 8, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorensen-scillitani-2; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.