The Education of Axel Heyst

[AxelHeyst]

I'm now almost done with the book and I found the 50% to about 85% was the most salient. Lots of skimming through the other bits.

In particular I found the tables and unpacked explanations of Collapsed, Exaggerated, and Balanced expressions of the subtraits of ICD useful. Seeing some of my past experiences as pendulumnig between collapsed and exaggerated expressions of subtraits, with very brief and tantalizing moments of being in balance due to the stars aligning, pretty much nails it for me. Starting from a collapsed state, some inner or outer experience or coalescence of energy will kick me into an energized and DGAF mode and I'll stomp the gas and drop the clutch, allowing myself to experience full intensity and opening the throttle on drivenness (which is more like easing up on denial narratives).

Then it's wheeeee for as long as that lasts, which is until I either hit physiological limits or hit a shame or false-self trigger (e.g. making a comment out of exuberance that outs my state and makes me worried that maybe I've hurt someone/crossed a line (not an unrealistic concern)) and that precipitates a move back into collapsed expression.

I think I've spent more time in a collapsed expression state because I'm very sensitive to the "oh fuck am I making people feel bad again" sensation and the exaggerated states are difficult to control. I'd say I'm relatively high-functioning in collapsed state - I've learned how to get my shit done, more or less, make pokey progress on this n that, because I've spent so much time there, but it's a pretty gray place to be. One of the reasons I go so fast when I switch states is because of how the contrast feels: letting my ICD out to play feels so fucking good, and experience tells me it isn't going to last long, so enjoy it while it lasts and inhale the whole thing. One state feels like bad cocaine, the other feels like a mild hangover. And when I'm in the cocaine-state I have the looming proximity of the hangover state in the back of my mind.

Her advice, to learn how to manage expression of these states, and thus spend more time in a balanced state, makes a lot of sense to me. And increasing the amount of time I spend in a balanced state sounds really, really nice.

--

What's resonated most of the three traits is her descriptions of intensity and drive. It feels like I check every single one of the boxes describing those. Complexity feels like my limiting factor. I've got the trait, but it feels like the bottleneck. I think it's partly because I've got less horsepower in that domain relative to my intensity and drive (my I and D traits are sitting there going c'mon c'mon think of the next thing brain lets go lets go we need the thoughts now hurry tf up).

But based on the above model, I wonder how it'd feel if I started spending considerably more time in a balanced state. When I'm in cocaine-mode I'm trying to go as fast as possible and my thinking-brain can't keep up with the sense of urgency. If I was able to chill out just a little bit and give my brain enough time to think without feeling so pressured, I might regain better interaction between the three traits.

--

Regarding your comments @scott2, I've gotten a lot of mileage from thinking with the frameworks from both autism, the general neurodivergence conversation, and ICD (very little of the adhd-specific frameworks do it for me, although I appreciate learning more about people for whom it does). The ICD stuff might be resonating more with me because due to my particular sensitivities and engineered environment, the only need or support I really feel is the need to be left the hell alone when I want, which is most of the time. Now that my life is arranged such that I've got 100% control over the "other people being up in my shit" valve, I'm good. Most of the tools I've come across for helping people deal with being autistic/adhd in a NT world don't feel super salient to me, although there are high-value nuggets here and there that I'm grateful for.

For me, much more than any specific framework, it is the higher level insight that I might simply be wired different (and not just weirdly bad at being a person) that has brought me the most peace/value. Digging through all the various frameworks has felt like a treasure hunt.

[Scott 2]

But based on the above model, I wonder how it'd feel if I started spending considerably more time in a balanced state.

For me, those tables are the essence of the book. They are also where I found myself reframing. Of course I wanted to identify with the balanced state. It's way better. If I'm not there, I'm losing.

My reality though, is I'm going to exist in each of the states. It isn't static. For me, the consideration is why, and why now? Rather than idealize balanced, how do I serve what is?

I found myself very directly connecting each collapsed or exaggerated state with impairments caused by a specific deficit. "Oh that's rejection sensitivity, there's black and white thinking, and now we have hiding in a special interest..."

The modern models are better encapsulated, IMO. When teasing out change, I find the precision useful. The author is missing the clean chunking found in later resources - like the gifted, ADHD, autism overlap ven diagram.

Pick an encapsulated trait - say demand avoidance - and you find a wealth of proven strategies, along with the corresponding pitfalls.

I'm pretty good at identifying those patterns in myself now. I can articulate what's happening and why. I know the library of strategies, along with what works best for me. While my supports definitely take the edge off, I've learned there's a certain baseline that doesn't change. It's simply my nature.

I'm literally looking into drugs, because even my therapist has said I'm doing all the things.

Given the appeal I find in deficit based medical models, it's funny to say this. But I'm learning even with the best supports, sometimes "life just be that way". And it's ok. Eventually willing one's self to be different, stops being constructive. Optimal might not be desirable, or even available.


My other take away from the tables, was "this is just yoga". Each column aligns with one of the gunas - rajas, tamas and sattva.

https://www.yogabasics.com/learn/the-3-gunas-of-nature/

We can take the yogic prescription of steadiness and ease - sthira sukham asanam.

https://www.yogabasics.com/connect/yoga ... am-asanam/

So, practice and all is coming. Enjoy the Ashtanga.

[zerofries]

I believe it's in the ERE book bibliography as well. It's great for reconsidering the various "traps" (Kegan3) one might find oneself in whether consciously or unconsciously. When I reread it ~ten years later, I was less impressed. The proposed solution often comes across as a kind of "I don't care #idc" and so can easily lead to a kind of nihilism when it comes to any concerns beyond the person or the person's ego. Furthermore, [this perspective] might be limiting once one ages out of "extremely online libertarian" and into a somewhat more influential or powerful position and discovers that one actually can change/influence things that one's younger self filed under "idc lol".

IOW, the book talks a lot more about freedom-from or negative freedom than it talks about freedom-to. As such, I see the book's message more as the beginning than the end of the road to freedom

The problem with defining freedom as "doing what you want" is that people don't often choose their desires. Unless you're a fully thought-out and self-realized individual, you just become a slave to those unchosen desires. If going the "I don't care" route, you really have to go all the way with it, to the point you are indifferent to your own desires. Then freedom can dawn. But there are a lot of paths like that, they only really work when taken to their extreme, wherein they end up transcending the whole thing.

[OutOfTheBlue]

IOW, the book talks a lot more about freedom-from or negative freedom than it talks about freedom-to.

I believe it covers both. Freedom-to is discussed in Part III: A New Life.

Fewer pages, but freedom-to is much more open-ended, and left for self exploration.

[thef0x]

Just wanted to say that your ongoing digestion and discussion of these topics re neurodivergence has been really helpful to me personally, so thanks dude. I have a family member as well as a good friend who'd perplexed-ish me in the past, but now is making a lot more sense.

I tend to feel myself fight self-labeling & group identities because groups spawn group-think and I find it ugly and excusing; often the opposite of radical ownership of myself. Cool to see you carefully assess and take lessons from these books/sources while humbly disagreeing with certain points. Takes huevos.

I want to bring up these topics with a family member but don't want them to feel singled out, different, etc, but simultaneously, I think doing so could be a huge ah-ha for this person. Curious if you had any suggestions based on your learnings so far or maybe better, don't-do's/say's.

[jacob]

I want to bring up these topics with a family member but don't want them to feel singled out, different, etc, but simultaneously, I think doing so could be a huge ah-ha for this person. Curious if you had any suggestions based on your learnings so far or maybe better, don't-do's/say's.

Being a categorically different (2+ sigma deviation) outlier but being told or assumed by well-meaning "normies" (<1 sigma) that everybody is unique and special or just have their own story---essentially that everybody are but variations on a familiar theme---can actually be just as frustrating/infuriating to the outlier. It's the difference between being welcoming (inclusive of everybody) and understanding. Most normies don't really have a clue about how it is to be different because normality or even "normatively" is the water they swim in. They think that those who are outside the water just need a little help or encouragement: "Lighten up buddy, come join us at the table. Everybody likes karaoke, alright!" It shows a high degree of emotional sympathy but it utterly lacks cognitive empathy. Not everybody likes to "be fun" or to sing" or "be part of a group".

The reason is that ["everybody is unique"] doesn't really explain anything to someone who have perhaps desperately be looking for an explanation or just an excuse for a long time. From their perspective, everybody else seems to fit in and make instant connections leaving it easy to conclude that they're not "unique" as much as they're "wrong" or "broken" or "need to try harder".

I speculate that outliers have introspected a lot more on why they feel different or aren't into the same things as everybody else than normies. They therefore know themselves pretty well but they likely lack the words or the code (system of words) to understand themselves (Where would they have gotten the code from!?). So they're looking for that. Before I found "my people" as an older adult, the best I had in terms of feeling understood were books from dead authors. (Many read as a way of having an author formulate thoughts that they have themselves but struggle to express.)

You can kind of see the desperation given how willingly outliers are when it comes to jumping on the latest diagnosis. Suddenly everybody who was bored in school thinks they have ADHD and half of Silicon Valley becomes self-diagnosed autists. Yet a misdiagnosis or wrong categorization is just as frustrating as the lack of one because the wrong code is often worse than no code at all. (I suspect this is where the allergy towards labels comes from.)

The immediate problem is that very many humans have gotten into the mode of saying what they think other people would like to hear (Kegan4), often to the point of not even being self-aware of it (Kegan3). So first you have to deal with the masking that is otherwise known as polite or superficial conversation. This is tricky because that's probably 99% of the conversations that everybody has had in their life.

Many outliers have, therefore, spent much of their life developing a passable way of communicating with normies (defined as 85<IQ<115, extraverted, concrete sensing, emotive, talking in narratives) and may even be masking when talking to you! This is not simple; lots of frustrating effort went into this [developing passable masking]. To actually connect with an outlier behind their mask would require developing similar software---something that normies never had to do. This is a big ask for talking to what is <5-10% of the population. You'd do it for a partner or maybe a child or a parent but maybe not someone you only see occasionally. Even if you wanted to, you wouldn't get enough practice.

Consider that a given household may have 4 sensors and only 1 intuitive. Or 3 people who focus at the abstract level of reality but 1 who focuses the meta-systemic. Even at larger [random] family gatherings, they may still be the outlier. And you might not ever see them in their unmasked state when they "lighten up" in the company of other iNtuitives or systems-thinkers.

Connecting is being tasked to think in a way that is completely alien. It could be them seeing connections that you don't (and which you therefore assume are irrelevant or non-existent)---alternatively them being oblivious to connections that are obvious to you (and which you assume are obvious to everybody because you see them and so they go without saying). It could be you using reason to rationalize your emotions and them using reason to override their emotions or the other way around. It's hard to comprehend that others don't see aspects of reality that you see readily. It is also to imagine aspects that you don't see but others see easily. This is a lot harder to do than it sounds. However, step 1 is accepting that the difference exists and that it is not just a difference in degree but a difference in kind.

Successful approaches will vary a lot! My first indication that "differences in kind" existed was during many long evening conversations with my dorm neighbor, where she insisted that some people made decisions based on how they felt about something. Previously I had always assumed that emotions was just background noise that one would feel but which weren't relevant to reasoning at all. I was convinced that most people had an axiomatic reasoning system built from first principles and that the only differences in opinion were due to different assumptions or faulty logic. However, I wouldn't say that this insight was life changing. Rather, it just indicated that there were problems with my theory-of-mind and that it was likely incomplete. (It's one thing to be given a clue that more information exists. It's entirely next-level to act on it.) It was the discovery of MBTI which put it all into a complete system. I suspect this worked for me because my mind is better at locking onto theories and categories whereas conversations for me are often "in one ear and out the other" and thus don't register much. MBTI was sufficiently complicated to be descriptive AND workable unlike say Galen's four temperaments (sanguine, phlegmatic, etc.) which is too simplistic and OCEAN which is purely descriptive (knowing that someone else is in the 78% percentile of anxiety compared to the general population doesn't explain much, especially not if your own score is 2%). I note other people find insight in fictional characters or perhaps humans they know. They can say that X human is just like fictional Y character from book Z and thus use those character analyses as a model for other people as well as themselves. I suppose that might have been what all those literature classes in school were about but they were completely wasted on me because I didn't (and still don't) find [literary characters] relatable. Comparing to a set of fictional characters doesn't work on my mind at all. No, give me a system and labels any day.

Point being, the format/presentation of the insight matters! For example, giving a book to someone who doesn't read (the lack of books on their bookshelf would be a clue) doesn't work. The timing may matter too. When the student is ready the teacher appears. I think you what you can effectively do/hope for is to present yourself as someone who might know by occasionally throwing out indications that you do know [about alien minds] beyond the standard mask. Then wait for them to bite.

PS: All this directed mostly at you for saying keywords like "feel", "singled out", and "different" as if they are somehow bad words. This is a bias or even a box that may not be appreciated by the actual person you're trying to reach. It could be that they're actually waiting to be singled out or recognized for being different.

[guitarplayer]

Do stereotypical INTJ folk cry sometimes, for example in the face of something they consider beautiful?

ETA okay I realise this is a tangential question actually. Another question would be if the MBTI distribution in the gifted population is statistically same to general, or general minus gifted.

Also, I definitely see that there is this mislabelling happening using whatever is fashionable at the moment. But as per the Venn diagram shared elsewhere, it is possible, while personally detached from labels, use labels and tools associated with them instrumentally. I have done it when working with people with autism and I am doing it now as well working in a ‘green’ white collar organisation.

[AxelHeyst]

Do stereotypical INTJ folk cry sometimes, for example in the face of something they consider beautiful?

Dunno about stereotypical but this INTJ does. Not often, almost always solo, when I come across something that hits just right. The things that 'get' me in that way I'd more describe as sublime ("The term especially refers to a greatness beyond all possibility of calculation, measurement, or imitation."), in particular those sublime things that walk the line between greatly beautiful, greatly tragic, and deeply horrible. Sometimes though it's just me noticing a cat looking out the window in a certain kind of way. (to be honest, though, there's got to be something in the stance of the cat or what they're looking at that evokes in me an internal experience of, e.g., feline hunter-instinct passed down genetically through deep time, ...)

ETA: A very non-exhaustive list of things that've made me cry:
-Sun O)))
-A story about how a certain species of geese flies over the whole Gulf of Mexico every year and it's a very long journey that they prepare and rest up for, because they have to flap the whole thing or they'll die alone in the ocean (I'm probably wrong on the details but the gist is what got to me). It wasn't the fear that got me choked up, it was the determined "this is what we do"-ness of the thing. Quiet, matter of fact resolve in circumstances with ultimate consequences Get To Me every time.
-The way I saw a little girl smile up at her mom while walking down the sidewalk once
-Cattle Decapitation's album Terrasite

[jacob]

Do stereotypical INTJ folk cry sometimes, for example in the face of something they consider beautiful?

Crying is an emotional reaction that is associated with Fi and/or Fe. For INTJ's those are located in the 3rd (Fi) and 7th position (Fe) accordingly.

Fi relates to values and morality and what's important in life. Beauty can certainly be one of those values but I think it has to be a little bit more specific than that. Is it a beautiful face? A beautiful landscape? A beautiful space rocket? A beautiful equation? A beautiful sentiment? It has to mean something to the person and what's meaningful is likely fairly idiosyncratic.

Fe relates to emotional communication with other people. INTJs are notoriously blind to this. Not that INTJs can't see other people's emotions but INTJs struggle to comprehend why they're such a priority to others, in particular why signalling emotions, which crying clearly does, is even a thing.

However, being in 3rd and 7th position respectively, they're not as big a deal as they are for e.g. INFPs for whom crying is practically a form of meditation or ESFJs who readily cry whenever they share something sad (or beautiful) with their social circle or vice versa.

[Scott 2]

it is possible, while personally detached from labels, use labels and tools associated with them instrumentally

Even if you adopt the labels, this is what ultimately happens. It's how the day to day conversation has to go. IE:

"Hey, the music is making it hard to follow our conversation, can we talk outside?"

Everyone has a different understanding of the broad labels. They're not effective for facilitating communication.

[jacob]

ETA okay I realise this is a tangential question actually. Another question would be if the MBTI distribution in the gifted population is statistically same to general, or general minus gifted.

Very different, like by an order of magnitude! The histogram in the OP here is kinda famous.

[AxelHeyst]

I want to bring up these topics with a family member but don't want them to feel singled out, different, etc, but simultaneously, I think doing so could be a huge ah-ha for this person. Curious if you had any suggestions based on your learnings so far or maybe better, don't-do's/say's.

I'm not sure I have any suggestions, I think I can only describe my experiences which may or may not be helpful.

I've been told by various people that I'm 'real smart' in the past, and those comments all a) bounced off and b) made me feel bad. I know some people want to be or like being the smartest person in the room. I do not. I do not want to be pointed out as smart and I think people who do this to me are being dumb or missing the point somehow. I don't really understand my reaction about this, and I'm not sure it matters much. It might have to do with my distaste for people using words that have been so colloquialized and misunderstood that they are now useless. I really value precision, I hate being misunderstood, and so when people confidently use words to describe me that mean almost nothing or could mean almost anything it makes my skin crawl. A great way to nerd snipe me is to confidently assert something that could have multiple possible meanings based on your word choice or composition. Make the sentence about me and I'll either pedantically insist that you define/unpack your terms, defensively insult you, or change the subject. Either way I'll have to employ a cognitive technique to get my brain to exit the loop, and I'll resent you for bogarting my brain cycles on something useless. I relay this to caution against language like "You're clearly very ____".

Regarding general neurodivergence, this all started when my romantic entanglement, who I had not yet met IRL, mentioned offhandedly in our text thread that she assumed I wasn't neurotypical as if it were obvious. She assumed I identified as ND. This landed fine, because a) being romantically entangled and attracted to this person it'd be pretty tough for anything she does at this point to piss me off and b) seemed like an honest mistake. Her frank assumption that I already knew I was ND piqued my curiosity, pointed at a potential blind spot in my own self-understanding and I'm a sucker for having blind spots exposed.

IIRC this led to some brief internet searches, and then an introspective/self-inquisitive post in this journal, and then Scott2 said he'd found the CAT-Q test interesting and was curious what my score would be based on the language I was using to describe my experience. That sort of comment lands really well with me. Genuine curiosity about my inner experience coming from his own experience. It triggers my own genuine curiosity.

--

+1 to this:

PS: All this directed mostly at you for saying keywords like "feel", "singled out", and "different" as if they are somehow bad words. This is a bias or even a box that may not be appreciated by the actual person you're trying to reach. It could be that they're actually waiting to be singled out or recognized for being different.

The idea that I'm just actually in certain measurable ways quite different than the majority of the population, and not just in a "every snowflake is different isn't that beautiful" kind of way, was immensely relieving. It was, in a way, permission to stop the relentless, lifelong effort of attempting to hammer my round-peg self into the square-hole of expectation, and feeling like a loser or a weakling or a moron for not pulling it off so effortlessly like everyone else.

[guitarplayer]

@Scott 2 so I read this as eclectic approach, or ‘whatever works’. Like in Paul Watslawick (radical constructivist but I think of a good kind).

@Jacob ha this graph is impressive, I feel like chasing up background research of this.

I maybe have a hard time clicking with the conversation due to spending a number of years reading about this stuff and there abouts as my main activity.

[jacob]

@Jacob ha this graph is impressive, I feel like chasing up background research of this.

You can find some here: https://www.amazon.com/Gifts-Differing- ... 089106074X where Myers looks at Rhodes scholars and National Merit finalists. Similar results. Often thing to bear in mind here is that those look more at "intellectual achievement" than the old school lens of equivalating giftedness with IQ (here I would expect the histogram to flatten out a bit). It fits insofar giftedness ~ intellectually gifted, which is the ability to think about thinking-stuff. Not really surprising that this favors IN** types because that's pretty much what they do/who they are. Same reason one finds more NBA players amongst people who are >6' compared to people <6'.

[guitarplayer]

Hm in light of the above, no wonder mbti is a hard sell for vast majority of the population. Maybe better ‘use it but don’t talk about it’.

After all, nobody likes to be short.

[Scott 2]

I want to bring up these topics with a family member but don't want them to feel singled out, different, etc, but simultaneously, I think doing so could be a huge ah-ha for this person. Curious if you had any suggestions based on your learnings so far or maybe better, don't-do's/say's.

If the topic is applicable, the family member is already singled out. Constantly. If you approach from a standpoint of fixing, it's unlikely to go well. They know things are different. A label potentially attacks their underlying sense of self. It risks being both hurtful and destabilizing.

Privately, I will joke about being a "marginalized neuro-minority". Since I'm operating from a place of high privilege and have tools, it's easy to make light of the distress. For someone who is struggling though, it's a very real and serious problem. Especially if there is further intersection - maybe race, gender identification, or sexual orientation.

I have attempted connection via disclosure. I've found experiences work better than labels. IE - someone might commiserate on the perils of a conference in Vegas. But throw out the word autism, and it's "I'm sorry that happened to you". Or say ADHD, and it's "haha, me too, squirrel!"


Approached from a context of understanding, you might open a shared conversation. IE - "I talk to these guys online, they are going on about neurodivergence. I like some of the tools. For example... Is it something you've explored?" Odds are, their social media feed already raised the idea. But it may be an extremely vulnerable topic.

[jacob]

If the topic is applicable, the family member is already singled out. Constantly. If you approach from a standpoint of fixing, it's unlikely to go well. They know things are different. A label potentially attacks their underlying sense of self. It risks being both hurtful and destabilizing.

I agree with this. I would also add that offering a "tool" comes with even higher risks, because there's nothing that implies "I think there's something wrong with you that I think could easily be fixed" (or more simply put: "I think you need to change") than offering a specific tool regardless of whether it's objectively helpful or not. "Hey, you look out of shape. Here's a three week fitness program for you as free gift from me to you!"

Most humans are conditioned to be conventional and not stand out. Humans are also very protective of their ego. After all, their ego is basically what they use to function in this world. Many ego-confronting things are therefore taboo to bring up in polite conversation despite how much more interesting or deeper connections might become. It's just like with the Wheaton scale, where...

Maybe better ‘use it but don’t talk about it’.

When it comes to dialectic conversations and potential confrontations, use [the model](*) to code switch so as to stay at the "inspiring" distance in the Overton window. It's strategically less risky to work yourself into a position and become seen as "someone who could help if asked". Once someone else is seen as an active agent (activist), people tend to put up all kinds of defenses to the point of being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. "(Nobody tells me what to do!"-style. Whoops a potential ally was just turned into an enemy.) But OTOH, if you just throw out bait from time to time, you'll keep the option open for them to take when they are ready.

(*) Ideally only reveal the model to those who don't get defensive when labelled by the model. This doesn't happen before the post-post-conventional stage, so figure that pretty much anyone who is not really into this stuff [along whatever dimension unknown to them] will get offended.

Usually to accept change, one needs the right message at the right time from the right person or source. This encompasses all the barriers from complexity to inner work to in-group/out-group social relations (depending on how someone's ego was constructed). For something as complex as humans, you're rarely fixing one problem at a time. Any one positive suggestion may, no will cause negative (heterotelic) effects elsewhere. Only a few will eventually be able to take input from anywhere w/o getting defensive (Kegan5+).

In terms of actionable suggestions, let the environment do the work for you. Occasionally throw out terms (dog whistles, really) that suggest "for more info, talk to me, click this link". For example, if someone is neurodivergent, hint about neurodivergent issues at the "inspiring level". If they start talking to you at that level, hint at the next level, and so on.

PS: I say this as someone who usually talks to a mass audience from a few sigma beyond the norm and not someone who talks to individuals one by one. Mileage may vary.

[guitarplayer]

That's a good post.

I am saddened you never picked up the last sentence from my post above as I'd thought it was a very clever way to make my point.

[thef0x]

Thank you all for weighing in, helpful for me re mindset & angle of approach.

[7Wannabe5]

A more cynical perspective might suggest that the labeling transition from "gifted" to "neurodivergent" might be due to "follow the funding." I don't know how widely read Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" is any more, but it used to be sometimes comprehended in verb form, as in "I had to Harrison Bergeron myself while watching the vice-presidential debate." No, it would be more like, "My theory of mind is not well-developed enough to successfully reconstruct meaning from the Swiss cheesed remains after attempting two cycles of anti-Harrison-Bergeroning the vice-presidential debate transcript."

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal
before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter
than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was
stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the
211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing
vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
Some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April for
instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in
that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteenyear-old son, Harrison, away.
It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very
hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't
think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his
intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his
ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a
government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would
send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair
advantage of their brains.

There's a theory* that whenever we meet somebody we tend to semi-consciously autopilot do three things very quickly in order to establish relationship:

1) Find any commonality.
2) Communicate our status/importance.
3) Communicate a vulnerability in a manner meant to provoke empathy.

And there can be layers upon layers of this sort of thing. It's entirely possible to be even more put off by the manner in which another human attempts (3) as the manner in which they attempt (2.)

*ETA: The philosopher Agnes Callard, "Aspiration", Ezra Klein Show, "Best Of: Status Games, Polyamory, and the Merits of Meritocracy."