Downplaying your Intelligence

In the hierarchy of conceit, intelligence reigns.

Thread

If you want to soften people’s guard, the evident faculty to downplay is intelligence, but the other two facets to downplay are judgement and experience as both draw up close to intellect on the hierarchy of conceit.
Make them feel superior to you in these faculties, and you will have them at the tip of your fingers.

It is the ideal camouflage to seem less clever than you are and at times, somewhat of an idiot to confound people.
The sense of intellectual superiority you can induce in people by means of cognitive reassurance through indirect modes will lay down their doubt and suppositions and will be coerced easier to your side.
Do not communicate this implication through direct means, though, utilise concealed and roundabout methods as these are more subtle and potent.

A gesture of admiration at their intellectual ability, for instance, can go a long way.
Remember: It will not serve you to divulge and show off your intelligence, especially if you are incalculably superior, make it habitual to denigrate your intelligence continually.

When you have power, do not be overt about it.

Feign a lesser position.
On the other hand, you can’t carry yourself in a half-witted manner, especially if you have people above you who are superiors, you must make it apparent, through your eloquence and articulation, that you are brighter than your rivalries.
As you are more established, though, you must carefully lessen your genius to keep people on your side.

Lastly, if people discover the truth underlying your modesty and humbleness, they will not resent you for it.
Instead, they will admire your capacity for discretion rather than exhibiting your great intellect among everyone.

There is but one exception, of course, where it will serve your benefit to oppose this rule.
There will be conditions where masking a deception will demand a display of brainpower, in such circumstances, do not conceal it but encompass it.

More from For later read

I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?


Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB


For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.

That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.

In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)

You May Also Like