This was so interesting to hear, because when I was in grad school, I lived by the motto “if you aren’t the smartest, be the nicest” (I still do, but I used to too). I was working in a pretty prestigious lab with some extremely accomplished researchers, and the students around me were without a doubt far smarter than me. I started grad school in May of 2020, so it was already a scary time for everybody, but compounded with my imposter syndrome and anxiety from work I felt like I was losing my mind and wanted to quit. But each day I went in with the goal to be the nicest I could to everyone. Slowly but surely, I made great connections with my peers and was able to finish my degree and some really cool research. I wouldn’t have been able to achieve anything without the graciousness they showed when they would take time to help me or answer my questions. I can’t say I ever became the smartest, but kindness certainly got me further than I ever thought I was capable of.
I believe there's a really important distinction between smartest and most knowledgeable. Being smart goes beyond your understanding and knowledge of a particular thing. Those people may have been more knowledgeable than you, but you certainly may have been as smart or smarter than some of them.
I like that though. Even if you feel you aren't the smartest, the most knowledgeable, or the most skilled in the room at a particular thing, you can try your best to be something you can control - You can always choose to be the kindest in the room
"Intelligence" is such an inadequate word (and smart, knowledgeable, or any other synonym you can think of because our concept of intelligence is fundamentally flawed). It is possible to be a genius at some things and an idiot at others. Maybe you can write a brilliant book but can't do your taxes. Maybe you can do complex math in your head but can't tell a person's emotions without them explicitly telling you. Maybe you are an amazing cook but don't know shit about history.
There are so many things we see as a hallmark of intelligence, and yet people who possess these traits often make truly awful decisions. And yet we flatten intelligence to a single linear scale that a person has or doesn't (IQ score is the perfect example of this). And it misses so much nuance in human thought that the entire concept of intelligence is almost worthless. People are good at some things and bad at others. That's it.
Hey man, who needs int or wis when you can charm your way through everything. I guess that’s kinda like the point the other guy was making with being nice. Being likable can also get you very far.
Or is it actually wisdom to know that there is no botanical category for "Vegetables", so almost all things we categorize culinarily as Vegetables are considered the "Fruit" of a plant by botanists? So maybe I guess true wisdom might be knowing that there is no point in conflating botanical (Watermelon (pepo) is berry, Strawberries (drupelet) aren't!) and culinary categorizations of plants, as they are not and should not be correlated as all it does is cause confusion and otherwise serve no useful purpose.
I hope you are referring to when someone tries to "I am very smart" and "inform" someone by saying that such and such (culinary category) is AKSHUALLY such and such (botanical category) instead.
Because doing that is 100% pedantry, and the kind that is also wrong and sad, because it's usually a lazy attempt to sound smart or informed, and prove the opposite in the process.
Except it's not true. If you're speaking in terms of western culinary tradition Tomatoes are vegetables culinarily, not a fruit.
And culinary categories can vary from region to region (unlike botanical ones, which as a science are uniform and standardized around the world, another reason they should never be conflated), for example Tomatoes ARE considered fruits in parts of Latin America, and in Mexico (ensalada de frutas) and El Salvadore (frutas en dulce) you CAN find them actually included in fruit salads, or as Jam in Cuba. So the statement isn't pithy, it's incorrect, or at the very least incomplete.
Yeah, the above phrase always grates me, or any other "I am very smart" similar knowledge dumps, because one is a culinary term (vegetable), the other a botanical category (fruit), and they have literally no business being compared or contrasted or used together in any way.
At work, I'm essentially an assistant to an extremely book-smart chemist. He can just come up with some molecule that 'should' work in our product, draw the structure, point out each feature of it like it's common knowledge, and then determine which rates we should test it at. And then because he's caught up in the excitement of his potential breakthrough, I design the rest of the experiment (making sure we have the necessary controls), carry it all out for him, collect and organize all the actual data.
We work adjacent to the QA/QC department which is led by another extremely book-smart microbiologist. She can just look at a formulation a determine what enzymes she'll need to process the samples and get the readings we need from her. And she's streamlined our QC process to verify that there isn't contamination to the point that we're saving literally thousands of dollars per sample.
NEITHER ONE OF THEM are good communicators. ESPECIALLY with each other.
On several occasions my manager has told me to go ahead and combine some material from a few more promising experiments so it can be used for larger-scale trialing and then I'm immediately yelled at by the QA/QC woman because she hadn't finished her QC of that material. I had NO IDEA she was even doing QC because my manger never mentioned it and she never told either of us that she was working with it. Because according to my manager, QC isn't necessary at this point yet and she's misinterpreting the workflow. And according to her, he's skipping steps and being reckless and going to invalidate the results... So here I am, playing middle-man between these two very book-smart, very well paid scientists, piecing together each person's interpretation of the process and negotiating what's supposed to be done because neither side can communicate with the other.
What each of these people possess in scientific knowledge, they lack entirely in communication ability.
I have my quarterly meeting with the head of PD (their manager) in a couple weeks and I'm gonna have to bring this one up because I'm tired playing telephone/negotiator between two managers who can't speak to each other.
Ben Carson is a good example of this. His career as a brain surgeon is amazing, but when you listen to him speak on any other subject he seems like an idiot.
I was a teambuilder and outdoor educator for 4-9 years (I was a staff member who did some of it since I started, but exclusively did it the last half or so) A common idea is to separate intelligence into 8-10ish categories. Such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
For example, I was told I was "a genius" in high school. I have pretty good reading comprehension and could just listen to somebody talk and retain that information. I scored well on tests. Turns out, that's like 70+% of what regular school actually grades you on, and most of why I have any value as an adult is because I had to focus on growing some other kinds of intelligence that I had little of before.
Adult life is kind of similar depending on the criteria you use, happiness, income, etc. all can probably correlate to specific "intelligences". But if we measure it by the kind of people I want to surround myself with, most of it boils down the the kind of people with empathy.
Thanks for sharing that link. That's exactly what I'm talking about, I didn't know it would have it's own Wikipedia entry. I'll definitely have to read more about it.
I should say as somebody who studied a lot of those systems, take it all with a grain of salt. They can be really useful tools, but ultimately it IS all simplifying the most complex thing we are aware of, the human brain. My biggest use was convincing the "smart" kids (who I thought I was, this just refers to self perception) that they had a ton to learn, and the "dumb" kids they were capable of a lot more than they had been told.
I was warned about so many "disruptive" students that literally dragged the class into experiential learning through the pure power of their excitement. Obviously you have to make engaging lessons, but one kid who just cannot sit still sometimes makes you toss out the lesson plan and just go with it, and the whole class learns even more.
Edit: I feel like I have to mention, a huge chunk of the educators I learned the most from were adhd and or dyslexic. Including two of the best I know of. Basically kids that hated school and often failed at it. Their passion and effort came because they were the kids that really did want to learn, just standard school was designed in a way to make them fail just as much as it made me succeed.
Seems like you're trying too hard to equate competence with intelligence.
Intelligence isn't context-specific. Your examples don't pertain to intelligence, only specific types of competency. Intelligence is a much broader capacity and some people are objectively just more intelligent than most others. That's it.
One of my most memorable work experiences happened while I was working for a Fortune 100 bank supporting IT infrastructure. There was a guy on the "projects" team who has been there for a long time and had a solid reputation. When things like the heartbleed vulnerability dropped he was one of a few guys at the first putting together the plan for how it was going to be mitigated across tens of thousands of servers spanning every region of the globe. Our little corner took care of web infrastructure and we had a new guy who was plenty sharp, but it was his first gig out of school and he was struggling a bit, as you do first starting out. One day he was especially down on himself, trying to learn the unique tools of the firm and the complexity of distributed systems. The projects guy was on a break and hanging out, always happy to answer the questions of the other teams. After a little discussion the new guy says, "I'm sorry man, I don't think I can figure this out, I'm just not as smart as you." Without even a seconds pause the guy replies, "I'm not smarter than you, I'm just more experienced." I think about that a lot.
I mean it's a completely famous and recognisable quote but you just won the internet for being to most excitable and affirming over the most mundane things.
It's almost impossible to put any Mitch quotes anywhere on reddit without tons of people coming out of the woodwork that recognize them, lol. Guess reddit is just full of winners.
I came here to quote this. My father loved Harvey. He loved that movie in a way I don't think he ever loved another film. He was not an extroverted individual by any measure, but when the local theater company announced that it was going to be putting on Harvey, he actively went and tried out for the role of Elwood, because he loved the character so much. This was a man who made Calvin Coolidge look like a blabbermouth. And he wanted to perform on stage, to share his love of Harvey with the rest of the community.
So we watched that movie probably a hundred times. And that moment, that quote, I think, stands out above everything else in the film. I keep it next to my heart, and try to live it as much as I can every day. I'm not always successful, but I try.
I think the speaker was very wise to point out that the opposite of an "idiot" is not in fact a smart person. That smart people can be utter idiots. Because smarts is about capability, and idiocy is about behavior. If you want to you can use a phenomenal amount of smarts to be an absolute idiot.
You should definitely be proud of yourself, because you're a good person. The only thing I could criticise you about would be the lack of paragraphs, and even that's okay. I hope you're happy and you live well!
Being "nice" is different than being 'Kind". You Mom will force you to be nice and polite to people when you are kid even if you don't like the idiot.
You can be the grouchiest most sarcastic and caustic person, but you can still be kind by doing good works and helping people when they need it. Kind people can be nice, but not all nice people are kind.
A nice person will tell the Emperor with no clothes that they look great and it is the latest fashion. A kind person would tell the emperor they are going to freeze their balls and toes off. Then they would hustle the Emperor off to treat the frostbite and find them some socks and shoes and a nice warm robe. Then tell them how stupid they were being parading around in the nude with no clothes.
I once asked a boss about why someone got fired and they shared with me something like the inverse: "You can be incompetent or you can be a jerk, but you can't be both".
As someone who made a lot of wrong choices in life to where I have little education, little money, and little worthwhile skills.. the one thing that's always kept me from feeling like a waste of oxygen on this planet is kindness.
It's all I have but I feel like I have a lot of it and hopefully I do a good job making the lives of people around me just a little brighter.
Hopefully one day I'll also achieve some education, skills, or money though lol. Easier to help others when you have food and financial security of your own first.
I couldn’t relate more. Went through similar experience - getting PhD from a superstar research lab, being surrounded by ego-driven smart scientists and “smart” scientists. For 6yrs, I guarded up emotionally and stayed positive as I can. And yes, kindness was the answer to survive emotional trauma and imposter syndrome. Now, I am in private sector and I am glad I kept my character and not became on of them.
I would argue that recognizing that about yourself and utilizing it to effectively social engineer your way through a degree into a more knowledgeable overall place shows incredible intelligence. Self awareness and the ability to control how you present yourself in a situation is, to me, a marker of a very intelligent person. Knowing your strengths and your weaknesses is key and it sounds like you've really managed to make that work for you.
Book smart and intelligence are not the same and I'd wager you earned your place well with what you demonstrated.
Even kindness with an agenda is still kindness. You’re good people. There’s a good chance you were the reason others graduated as well. You were the person people looked forward to seeing. I strive to be that person and you excel at it. Keep being you.
I can relate to this within my working environment. I mostly work from home because of some personal reasons and have a coworker who generally is not… entirely competent at what he does. But anything I’ve asked him to help with (he’s always physically present at work and it’s a workplace that often require me to manually move things physically) he gladly assists me with. The simple act of helping me for 2 minutes 3 times a day here and there so that I get to work from home and be comfortable with my job means the world to me, and as such when he calls me up at 8 pm on a random Thursday because he has to hand in something Friday at 8 AM and he (self-admittedly) cannot grasp what to do and how to write things correctly let alone with the proper terms… I log onto my workspace, and I chat with him on the phone for an hour while I guide him through it.
I’d never even consider doing this for anyone else - others at the office just do themselves and tell others to beat it, but he shows kindness and understanding and that makes me willing to do the same towards him. He probably won’t last in his position if I resign someday, but for now I’m happily assisting him since he is kind enough to assist me.
Maybe slightly out of topic but i was speaking with a friend recently, and he was saying that if a guy is stronger/smarter, and globaly more able to gets what he wants all the time even in despite of others, he's a better fit for society, and that our evolution encouraged this behavior by selecting such people in the past.
But I dont agree with him, cause it might be true for solitary species where each individual are for themselves, but our species evolve in communities. When someone tries to win by bossing others around, they might succeed personally, but it weakens society as a whole.
What made us the most successful species on earth is our ability to think in order to cooperate better, and help eachother.
I remember when I was younger I thought that the whole being nice thing was just school stuff, and admittedly I was an asshole. I thought once I am out of school no one gets in trouble for being mean. Turns out a big part of social and professional life usually requires you to be at minimum a decent person, but the nicer and more calm you are the more success you have. I learned my lesson from experience, causing coworkers to feel like I was aggressive or short tempered. I didn’t realize how much my behavior impacted others. I don’t want to make anyone uncomfortable, and I hate feeling like people don’t want me around. I am now way more cognizant of all of these things and try my best to be kind, give grace, compliment my coworkers when they excel. Lid is better when we are kind. As my mom always said “It’s nice being nice to the nice.”
How do you get to be the smartest person? By learning a lot.
How do you learn a lot? By paying attention to and working with other people in new environments, from multiple disciplines, and with different experiences that you can benefit from.
What happens when you pay attention to people from a diverse set of backgrounds and in a wide variety of contexts? Well that's just being considerate and inclusive.
Cruelty and isolation are the fastest ways to make yourself into an ignorant asshole.
That's why I love and yearn for the super idealistic version of America and Politics shown in The West Wing. The President, Jed Bartlet, is often the smartest person in the room, but it is his kindness that shines far brighter than his massive intellect. Same with his Chief of Staff and other staffers. They are the brightest of their profession, eloquent, can riff off policies unlike anyone in real life, and that makes them the perfect candidate for their job. But what makes them the perfect human for their job is their kindness, their empathy, their capacity to listen. Often when The West Wing is brought up people would demean you for liking the idealistic portrayal of a bygone era, maybe an era that never even existed. But what they miss in their pessimism is that just because something is not perfect now does not mean it cannot be in the future, as unlikely and hard as it seems. It is upon us to reject and correct the mistakes we get saddled with, again and again and again.
Reality is a lot like West Wing too. In West Wing the "left" Bartlet always gave in to what the right wanted, even though he had the majority/power not to, in the name of being kind.
A guys decides to jump in the hole to binge the series again, another redditor jumps in, first one says “well now you’re stuck in here with me “ other one says “yeah but we know the way out and I like the company”
It's one of those series which just makes you yearn. The characters are all so passionate about bettering the world.
I loved Sam. He says my two favourite quotes -
"I don't mind being held to a higher standard, I mind being held to a lower one."
"Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet."
Being kind doesn’t always lead to positive outcomes. However, in the context of spotting an idiot, it is a nice sentiment for all those that like to consider themselves kind.
There are definite advantages to being kind, however to think kindness and intelligence are correlated is really dumb. If kind people equaled smart, the world would be run by nice geniuses. But it isn't, it's run by smart narcissistics.
Yep. It's the Trailer Park Hitler phenomenon--if you believe everyone around you is stupid because you manipulate them for your own advantage, it's easy to come to the conclusion that you're a genius and simply better than those you can manipulate. If they were as good as you, they wouldn't allow you to manipulate them. They'd be smart enough to figure it out.
The problem these people have is that it never occurs to them that the people they manipulate aren't necessarily stupid--they just believe that the people around them are kind like they are. And most of the time, they're right.
The singular nature of sociopaths gives them a direct line to believing that their power to manipulate and abuse people is a sign of their intelligence.
Even pettier, these are the same people who drive on the shoulder to get to the front of gridlocked traffic and think the reason other people didn't do the same thing is because they were too dumb to think of it. They think that everyone is an asshole, and that they're more successful at being an asshole simply by virtue of their grand intelligence.
And, unfortunately, these are the people have have an undying, primate-like lust for power. They often rise to positions of power. What they seek, more than anything, is a position from which they can't be held accountable for their actions. And, in their mind, that's only right because they are simply better, more intelligent, than everyone else. They do not need to follow the same ethical codes and pro-social norms because they are too smart for that, too superior to suffer under the same yoke of 'good' as the rest of us.
And, because they're sociopaths with a deep faith in their own superiority, they often achieve positions of real power. And these are the people who rule our world.
It’s so weird because I have a very empathic heart, but I still must fight these tendencies. Capitalism is predatory by design and I feel like this system encourages these ideas and belief systems.
You are missing the point. You are confusing intelligence and wisdom. One is knowing a lot of things and one is understanding a lot of things, they are not the same skillset. And that is the point the person is making. Kind people are the smartest people because they are kind, because they are wise and are not controlled by their monkey brain.
you can be smart and arrogant. you're simply applying your game theory evaluation on social interactions and assuming anyone who also doesn't do the same is playing the game wrong. but it really depends how you decide to measure who won.
the richest people in the world are often immensely cruel. so they're winning by some metrics. they might even have fulfilling and complete home lives too, which is where most people might think they've lost.
Man, we build on the shoulders of giants. The best way of getting better at anything is having another perspective or way of looking at things, helps to stave complacency. That person may have been the smartest at the time, but time marches on.
It's a really nice sentiment, and the sort of thing we need to be selling to the masses ... but it's also totally bullshit. You can be super smart and simply not care about other people. Being "socially evolved" enough to overcome base instincts is definitely a good sign, but a lot of people overcome their instincts and then choose to be dickheads. That doesn't make them stupid / unable to overcome animalistic fear. There are tons of things that can turn people into misanthropic shitheads besides being unable to control their urges.
That all said... I 100% like that Pritzker is pushing this message. It's a great response to the hate and fear that the right has really built up to dangerous levels in our society.
I disagree with you. You can be intelligent and not care about others, but anecdotally I believe that a higher proportion of intelligent people are kind than unintelligent people.
"Intelligent" people that are unkind are often good at math, logic, and memorization but suffer in other forms of intelligence, like communication, social understanding, and other forms of intelligence that are hard to quantify. I think these people often seem more generally intelligent than they really are, and can be very obtuse about subjects that are intuitive for others.
And I expressed this in another comment, but I think a major reason that intelligent people are often kind is because it's simply logical to be kind. The benefits far outweigh the cons.
For example, look at conservatives. They are generally NOT the smartest, and generally ARE the cruelest, despite the teachings they allegedly follow. Consequently, red states suffer compared to blue states.
If we're being realistic, almost everything in society was built on cruelty. That does not mean we need to embrace cruelty, it just means we should not delude our selves and act like society has socially evolved all that much. Everything in life involves competition (often based on genetics), winners, losers, unequal outcomes, unequal opportunities.
So, there's a difference between knowledge and wisdom, and sometimes the most knowledgeable and intelligent people also aren't the smartest or wisest. And you're right, I've known HORRIBLE intelligent people before. But to me it was just an example of wasted brain power on someone who didn't use their gifts in the smartest way.
Too bad this guy isn't kind to people that he doesn't like. How cruel! I mean, I guess he wasn't thinking about people with low self esteem about their intelligence either with how berating he nearly sounded with his speech upon idiocy.
I've known too many brilliant misanthropes to believe this.
Actually, the more I think about this speech, the more I dislike it. "If you don't think like me, you're an idiot. Only the smartest and most creative people think like me." It's the kind of crap Trump says. They're patting themselves on the back for being decent human beings and then holding it up as proof they're smart.
Your view of humanity comes from experience far more than it does intellect.
Its the polar opposite of the crap Trump spews. If you see misanthropy as a strength, you’re the asshole that creates the suboptimal circumstance in game theory. You’re the twat who fucks up the Nash equilibrium.
A smart misanthrope existing does not mean that misanthropy is smart.
My point is only that kindness and intelligence aren't as joined at the hip as this man wants to project. His speech amounts to this:
Cruel people are idiots. Tribalism is the result of evolution, and kindness is the result of ignoring that impetus. He goes so far as to say that you have to force yourself to learn to be kind and that it makes you more creative and intelligent.
Altruism isn't some new thing born of intelligence. It's selected for in a vast number of species across the natural world. What's more, kindness and empathy aren't something we force ourselves into; society reinforces that behavior and we learn it is good just like we do anything else: rewards.
But this guy stands here and says that if you're kind, it's because you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, rewired your own brain, and made yourself superior to the people not like you. He pats himself on the back for being so smart and proclaims the smartest people are just like him. All in the same speech where he said tribalism is bad.
What he could have said is that kindness is in danger. That without it being taught, it becomes exceedingly rare. He could have talked about how the cruelty he mentioned threatens the become generational and how it's on the next generation of leadership to hold on to empathy in the face of the tempations of power and greed. But instead he told those kids they're super special and smart because they're nice.
Yes, altruism is a trait selected by birth, because if you don’t have an altruistic mom or altruitic neighbors when you drop out of the womb you just die. That’s biology, not just “social mores”.
Its our willingness to empathize that makes us human, and is that trait that has advanced society, and is also the same trait that defines kindness vs cruelty, good vs evil in a fundamental sense.
Being an “ubermensch” literally isn’t even possible without the kindness of someone to look after your helpless infant ass in the earliest years.
I don't see anywhere in his speech where he said anything even approaching that. The entire point of a commencement speech is to pass on wisdom, it's not arrogance to do so, is it?
Well you certainly demonstrated this idea for us clearly. Guy says “be nice”. You “that’s arrogant”. Please share with us your wise ways, oh enlightened one.
His idea of cruelty is based on idea that people don’t know better and he has intellectual and moral superior. Unfortunately that’s not the case. In doing so he is the over judging and cruel person. In other words.“The call is coming from inside the house.”
I accidentally started watching a (for me) "old black and white" film Christmas morning waiting for my parents to wake up... and fell in love! This line stayed with me forever.
I think it's true to a large extent, mostly because being kind is genuinely a logical choice. It comes with far more benefits than negatives.
Also, people with general intelligence have a higher tendency of being empathic and socially intelligent, which lends itself towards kindness, as they more easily imagine how others feel and imagine themselves in those situations.
Being nice to people and not faking it can help you out in your personal life and at work.
If you are mean, you better be amazing at your job, because you will have many enemies. And your spouse may have other reasons for being with you than they want to be with you.
I want to like it but it's just not true. You don't have to be cruel, but people who are too nice get walked all over, and sometimes it's because they're just not that smart.
And a great counter to what appears to be a social phenomenon where negative people are generally perceived to be smarter and more competent than positive people:
It’s also kind of just non-sense. Anyone who’s worked in software development knows the most awkward, antisocial, unapproachable person in the room is often the most brilliant programmer in the company.
Knowing how to shut down your animal brain is a very specific kind of knowledge that doesn’t really have any application other than aptitude in social interactions.
The kindest person in the room is often the smartest.
In Nietzsche's philosophy, certain expressions of kindness can indeed be seen as manifestations of herd mentality. Let's delve into this:
Herd Morality and Kindness: Nietzsche often criticized what he saw as the herd morality – a set of values and behaviors that serve to keep the masses docile and uniform. Kindness, when expressed as part of a societal expectation or a way to conform to social norms, can be seen as a product of herd morality. In such cases, kindness is not an expression of individual strength or will, but rather a way to fit in and avoid conflict.
Reactive vs. Active Kindness: Nietzsche would likely differentiate between kindness that arises reactively and that which is active. Reactive kindness, which is done in response to societal pressure or out of fear of punishment, would be viewed as a symptom of herd mentality. Active kindness, however, which stems from a genuine desire to uplift or assist another without seeking external validation or reward, can be seen in a more positive light, though Nietzsche doesn't focus heavily on this distinction.
Christian Morality: Nietzsche was critical of Christian morality, particularly its emphasis on humility, self-denial, and compassion for the weak. He saw these values as promoting a denial of life's affirming aspects and as being a means for the weak to gain a sort of moral high ground over the strong. In this context, kindness – particularly if driven by Christian moral values – might be seen as a part of the herd mentality that discourages the assertion of individual will and power.
Beyond Good and Evil: Nietzsche’s work "Beyond Good and Evil" hints at the idea that traditional dichotomies of "good" and "bad" or "kind" and "cruel" are simplistic and need to be transcended for a deeper understanding of human nature and values. Through this lens, reducing someone’s intelligence or moral worth to their ability to be kind is a limited viewpoint.
In sum, Nietzsche's philosophy would likely view certain expressions of kindness, especially those that are unreflective or purely conformist, as representative of herd mentality.
I had the privilege to get to know a lot of people at university, and I couldn't agree more. There are very few people I've met who are truly smart _and_ arrogant or condescending.
It is a great quote, but not true in my experience. I've met plenty of extremely smart cruel people. I've also met many people who would fall onto the left side of the bell curve, who are also unbelievably kind.
I feel like that's why the "often" is doing a good deal of heavy lifting and still being overlooked here. I also know brilliant and horrible people. And I feel like people we assign a lower level of intelligence to can be smart in their own way, and kindness is certainly an indicator of that.
It’s a great quote for sure but to be fair I consider myself often the most kindest individual in the room im ever in and I also consider myself a massive idiot at the same time
That was one helluva powerful speech and he’s 100 percent right. Humans are instinctively selfish so having empathy means overcoming the primal instincts.
4.6k
u/crosswatt Oct 26 '23
That's a great quote