>>17254423
>Was it always like that?
Yes.
Intelligence has always been associated with eccentricity and downright insanity because the more complex and powerful one's mind is, the more things that can go horribly wrong.

>>17254427
It's less about eccentricity and being like your regular chad, stacey, horribly pretentious facebook girl/boy.
It must be the media that i would easily accept people being eccentric, but i get disappointed when they don't fit to my standards.
It's some immaturity, i'm still young. Still remember when my first expectations of meeting with people who do science didn't match tremendously.
You are right, people are people, hard work and abilities have nothing to do with anything else.

Then being a misunderstood drunkard is a completely neutral feature. Saying that "smart people drink more to get away from retards" is edgy and there are lots of dumb ego maniacs who justify their habits this way.

Character traits and habits are then neutral to intelligence level.
So are all prejudices wrong?

>>17254423
>So in the end intelligence has nothing to do with culture level it is an independent value
Yes.
>Am I moralfag or delusional if this seems like degradation to me? Was it always like that?
Yes and yes.
Why should smart people be more moral or more conservative or less interested in drugs? Why do you make that connection in your mind? Why does it matter that "some are girls?"

>>17254423
>Why I am pissed off at how can anyone excel academically and actually be smart?
If I had to hazard a guess, it's because your self-esteem has been drawn solely from your intelligence all your life. You were bullied horribly for it, and to cope, you set yourself above the mob. You were taught to do this by people who meant well: your parents, and maybe even some of your teachers. The ones who weren't victim-blaming you to Hell and back, anyway.

Now you are older and wiser, and are coming to realize what smart people are just people: not particularly better or worse than any others, at least not on that basis. And that calls your own self-image into question, which pisses you off.

I don't have an answer for you, I'm afraid. I'm searching for an answer too. All I can give you is my insight to date. I am sorry.

>>17254449
I don't know. I had sheltered childhood and the world just doesn't seem what i expected it to be.
And isn't my misconception pretty common?


This situation makes me mad and to think of it i should study harder to rise above these people and be smarter.

Not that petty envy is a moral trait.


>>17254450
You kind of guessed, i justified my social isolation with "having to study" and thought it was real good reason.
However can't regret it.
Classmates loved to bully everyone who showed any vulnerability, and i maintained stainless facade.

My issue was more about romanticising science, idolizing people who do it, never having first-hand experience, being a dreamy child.
Yeah, dumb.
Thought that same thing happens with anyone when they grow up. Nobody?

>>17254423
someone's capacity for knowledge is not related to who they are as a person.

smarter people just get bored more often, in my experience. It takes a lot more to challenge them so their mind occupies itself. This results in the quirky smart people Hollywood loves to show us.

>>17254467
Seems to me you should be more angry at the people who prevented you from knowing what the world is like than at the people who are just doing their own thing.

>>17254485
My escapist nature is more grateful to them about my ignorant bliss. I wouldn't end up studying without it even.
Life kinda sucks without romanticising it.

You seem to have lumped intelligence, education, morality, and propriety into a package together, when in reality, none of these is dependent on any other. They aren't totally unrelated (in that intelligent people are more likely to pursue higher education, people who take education seriously are more likely to learn propriety, etc.), but the relationships between them are inconsistent at best.

Honestly, I think the most important lesson here is that people are complicated. People can have some positive traits and not others, and that's ok. Being upset that others don't conform to the way you think people should be is something you're going to have to let go of if you want to be able to deal with people.

>>17254511 here
Actually, re-reading your post, you seem to have conflated morality with propriety. They are not - at all - the same thing.

>>17254494
>Life kinda sucks without romanticising it.
I couldn't disagree more. There's beauty is all aspects of life, you just need to find it.

>>17254423
>Was it always like that?

yep. read a book sometime.