"They thought that there was a great place for a person like Ted somewhere else."
I love this line from Kaczynski's parents. I'm so glad that you included it.
It speaks to the difficulty of relating to a child/young adult who is in their own league. I think it's possible to feel both loved and unwanted at the same time, and maybe that was also a factor in his story.
I've only just found this posting, and so I wanted to check that Tove had read the Atlantic article. (BTW, the Atlantic rations the number of articles you can see for free, but it's done with a cookie, so if you use a private window, it can't count how many you've seen.) I copied down this, which I take to be one of the central messages of the article:
"But the truly disturbing aspect of Kaczynski and his ideas is not that they are so foreign but that they are so familiar. The manifesto is the work of neither a genius nor a maniac. Except for its call to violence, the ideas it expresses are perfectly ordinary and unoriginal, shared by many Americans. Its pessimism over the direction of civilization and its rejection of the modern world are shared especially with the country's most highly educated. The manifesto is, in other words, an academic -- and popular -- cliche."
I think I read it. Or maybe I didn't because it's paywalled. But I read about the story and that Ted himself didn't belive he was deeply affected by the experiments.
I don't understand Ted Kaczynski's criticism of science as something irrational in itself. I mean, the Amish, hundreds of thousands of people, are also against practicing science. More or less for the same reason as Ted gives: That it would disrupt their genuine, simple life. So at least in theory I think it is possible to conclude that science is a bad thing without being personally traumatized by a darker side of science.
The Atlantic only lets me see a few pieces a month for free. I first read it several years ago and when I searched for it today to verify that I was thinking of the right piece, it popped up within my quota. In any case, the author corresponded with Kaczynski who brought up the experiments to the surprise of the author, and my general takeaway is that the matter is nuanced.
Personally, I generally agree, and feel technology is tricky. My general caution is about the unintended consequences of a new technology. Unfortunately, technology has a genie out of the bottle aspect to it, or a Pandora's Box aspect, if you prefer the Greek metaphor.
In my version thinking, we also seem to have the capability to study things and figure out best practices - but nudging people into the least harmful uses of a technology can be difficult, thus the lure of the simple. Agreed, not irrational, just not my cup of tea.
Ah, annoying all this! I think I read it because I also remember something with a quota. But now I can't be sure because I can't see it.
In any case, not my cup of tea either. I think psychology is a much stronger force than technology. People choose to use and not use different types of technology all the time. Other humans compel and restrict us much more than faceless technology.
Hilarious title. And a very interesting read! This seems like it's almost 100% right, which (now that "sawed, planed, and sanded thinking" is no longer your mission statement) may even be a bit high. ;)
But I do think you have a burr in the gears regarding intelligence. It comes out when you write things like "Unusual intelligence allows some people to have more advanced conversations, read and write more advanced texts and maybe, hopefully, understand the world a little better. But this is only a topping." But intelligence is so fundamental to a person's social interaction that fairly modest gaps - gaps significantly smaller than the human-chimp intelligence gap - can prevent bonds from forming:
Ted was a weird guy in various ways, and you suspect on account of this that he had high functioning autism. But there was never any psychiatric evidence for aspergers. What there was clear evidence for was high intelligence - in sixth grade, Ted took an IQ test, scoring 167. Childhood scores often regress slightly, so this might be rather a high estimate. When he was tested after his arrest, his score was still 136; given the loss of motivation that would naturally occur after it all came crashing down for Ted, this may be rather low. So, it's pretty common for people considering his life retrospectively to split the difference at around 150 IQ.
But whether we want to say he was 1 in 100,000, 1 in 2000, or even 1 in 100, Kaczynski was unquestionably highly intelligent. By itself, unusual intelligence is enough to form the basis for social isolation. Add a dash of introversion, and you have little hope of being friends with anybody.
I do think IQ tests are valid. But only very roughly. I think IQ can be measured more or less to the degree beauty can be measured: People tend to agree about who is very high and very low on the beauty scale. But they will disagree over who is a seven and who is a ten. I think it is the same with IQ. I don't think it matters at all whether Ted Kaczynski is a 167 or a 136. That figure only tells how good he is at writing IQ tests. Whatever his test result, he would still be an outstanding mathematician and a mediocre writer. One doesn't need an IQ test to see that.
You are better at studies than me so I guess you know more than me about studies that says anything about whether high IQ people really are social misfits (and that didn't recruit study subjects from Mensa). I mostly have my experience of people to draw from. And it says that higher intelligence really is only a topping. I live in a place populated by people with very ordinary IQ levels. When I speak with them, I can't help noticing the similarities they have with the unusually intellectually gifted people I know: They have ideas, some of them have artistic ambitions, some of them write texts for fun. They have elaborate thoughts about things they are doing and working with. They have pretensions for things they do, like gardening and traveling. Listening to presumably entirely average people has made me believe that intelligence really is just an ability that makes people think better. I get the impression that people of average intelligence have just as advanced personalities as people of higher intelligence. The latter just think a little bit better.
It would be great to know whether someone has tried to quantify this and how. I don't know anything about studies of IQ and personality, so I just have my personal observations.
OK Tove; this clarifies things a bit. Are you willing to be convinced that the above isn't really correct, or not? I think (no I'm not sure, but I *think*) that I have an argument that doesn't rely on studies, and that might convince you to change your opinion, but I never wrote it because my sense was that you would largely ignore it.
So really, is this something you're flexible about, or is this more like, "No, forget it, Apple Pie believes things, and they are cute, but no, there is basically no chance he's right about this." Be honest! If you say yes, I want you to really be willing to engage with me on this. For my part I am *definitely* willing to admit that I might be wrong about this, but I will tell you that I know this so well - and not from studies - and so confidently that if that turned out to be true, I would be seriously confused for a while, because to me my evidence for seems very strong.
Apple Pie
P.S. I signed a signature so that I could do a rad PS: your title for this post isn't just clickbait, it's totally hilarious, you win Substack funniest title of year. Like, I had some ideas, you know, but seriously I give up, there's no way I'll ever have a post title as funny as this. "I am the unibomber" = ROFL
I base my opinion on a handful of people I have met. I have no harder evidence than that. If I am ever going to be intellectually flexible, this must be the right occasion.
"They thought that there was a great place for a person like Ted somewhere else."
I love this line from Kaczynski's parents. I'm so glad that you included it.
It speaks to the difficulty of relating to a child/young adult who is in their own league. I think it's possible to feel both loved and unwanted at the same time, and maybe that was also a factor in his story.
Have you seen this piece? To me, it was a whole new wrinkle in the Ted Kacynzski story. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard-and-the-making-of-the-unabomber/378239/
I've only just found this posting, and so I wanted to check that Tove had read the Atlantic article. (BTW, the Atlantic rations the number of articles you can see for free, but it's done with a cookie, so if you use a private window, it can't count how many you've seen.) I copied down this, which I take to be one of the central messages of the article:
"But the truly disturbing aspect of Kaczynski and his ideas is not that they are so foreign but that they are so familiar. The manifesto is the work of neither a genius nor a maniac. Except for its call to violence, the ideas it expresses are perfectly ordinary and unoriginal, shared by many Americans. Its pessimism over the direction of civilization and its rejection of the modern world are shared especially with the country's most highly educated. The manifesto is, in other words, an academic -- and popular -- cliche."
I think I read it. Or maybe I didn't because it's paywalled. But I read about the story and that Ted himself didn't belive he was deeply affected by the experiments.
I don't understand Ted Kaczynski's criticism of science as something irrational in itself. I mean, the Amish, hundreds of thousands of people, are also against practicing science. More or less for the same reason as Ted gives: That it would disrupt their genuine, simple life. So at least in theory I think it is possible to conclude that science is a bad thing without being personally traumatized by a darker side of science.
The Atlantic only lets me see a few pieces a month for free. I first read it several years ago and when I searched for it today to verify that I was thinking of the right piece, it popped up within my quota. In any case, the author corresponded with Kaczynski who brought up the experiments to the surprise of the author, and my general takeaway is that the matter is nuanced.
Personally, I generally agree, and feel technology is tricky. My general caution is about the unintended consequences of a new technology. Unfortunately, technology has a genie out of the bottle aspect to it, or a Pandora's Box aspect, if you prefer the Greek metaphor.
In my version thinking, we also seem to have the capability to study things and figure out best practices - but nudging people into the least harmful uses of a technology can be difficult, thus the lure of the simple. Agreed, not irrational, just not my cup of tea.
Ah, annoying all this! I think I read it because I also remember something with a quota. But now I can't be sure because I can't see it.
In any case, not my cup of tea either. I think psychology is a much stronger force than technology. People choose to use and not use different types of technology all the time. Other humans compel and restrict us much more than faceless technology.
Hilarious title. And a very interesting read! This seems like it's almost 100% right, which (now that "sawed, planed, and sanded thinking" is no longer your mission statement) may even be a bit high. ;)
But I do think you have a burr in the gears regarding intelligence. It comes out when you write things like "Unusual intelligence allows some people to have more advanced conversations, read and write more advanced texts and maybe, hopefully, understand the world a little better. But this is only a topping." But intelligence is so fundamental to a person's social interaction that fairly modest gaps - gaps significantly smaller than the human-chimp intelligence gap - can prevent bonds from forming:
https://thingstoread.substack.com/i/96517630/who-can-keep-the-world-from-being-but-a-wilderness
Ted was a weird guy in various ways, and you suspect on account of this that he had high functioning autism. But there was never any psychiatric evidence for aspergers. What there was clear evidence for was high intelligence - in sixth grade, Ted took an IQ test, scoring 167. Childhood scores often regress slightly, so this might be rather a high estimate. When he was tested after his arrest, his score was still 136; given the loss of motivation that would naturally occur after it all came crashing down for Ted, this may be rather low. So, it's pretty common for people considering his life retrospectively to split the difference at around 150 IQ.
https://www.quora.com/Was-Ted-Kaczynski-s-real-IQ-167-or-136
But whether we want to say he was 1 in 100,000, 1 in 2000, or even 1 in 100, Kaczynski was unquestionably highly intelligent. By itself, unusual intelligence is enough to form the basis for social isolation. Add a dash of introversion, and you have little hope of being friends with anybody.
Yeah, you told me I should write more click-baity titles : )
I'm one of those people who do not consider intelligence highly measurable. https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/iq-and-intelligence-a-bifurcated
I do think IQ tests are valid. But only very roughly. I think IQ can be measured more or less to the degree beauty can be measured: People tend to agree about who is very high and very low on the beauty scale. But they will disagree over who is a seven and who is a ten. I think it is the same with IQ. I don't think it matters at all whether Ted Kaczynski is a 167 or a 136. That figure only tells how good he is at writing IQ tests. Whatever his test result, he would still be an outstanding mathematician and a mediocre writer. One doesn't need an IQ test to see that.
You are better at studies than me so I guess you know more than me about studies that says anything about whether high IQ people really are social misfits (and that didn't recruit study subjects from Mensa). I mostly have my experience of people to draw from. And it says that higher intelligence really is only a topping. I live in a place populated by people with very ordinary IQ levels. When I speak with them, I can't help noticing the similarities they have with the unusually intellectually gifted people I know: They have ideas, some of them have artistic ambitions, some of them write texts for fun. They have elaborate thoughts about things they are doing and working with. They have pretensions for things they do, like gardening and traveling. Listening to presumably entirely average people has made me believe that intelligence really is just an ability that makes people think better. I get the impression that people of average intelligence have just as advanced personalities as people of higher intelligence. The latter just think a little bit better.
It would be great to know whether someone has tried to quantify this and how. I don't know anything about studies of IQ and personality, so I just have my personal observations.
OK Tove; this clarifies things a bit. Are you willing to be convinced that the above isn't really correct, or not? I think (no I'm not sure, but I *think*) that I have an argument that doesn't rely on studies, and that might convince you to change your opinion, but I never wrote it because my sense was that you would largely ignore it.
So really, is this something you're flexible about, or is this more like, "No, forget it, Apple Pie believes things, and they are cute, but no, there is basically no chance he's right about this." Be honest! If you say yes, I want you to really be willing to engage with me on this. For my part I am *definitely* willing to admit that I might be wrong about this, but I will tell you that I know this so well - and not from studies - and so confidently that if that turned out to be true, I would be seriously confused for a while, because to me my evidence for seems very strong.
Apple Pie
P.S. I signed a signature so that I could do a rad PS: your title for this post isn't just clickbait, it's totally hilarious, you win Substack funniest title of year. Like, I had some ideas, you know, but seriously I give up, there's no way I'll ever have a post title as funny as this. "I am the unibomber" = ROFL
I base my opinion on a handful of people I have met. I have no harder evidence than that. If I am ever going to be intellectually flexible, this must be the right occasion.
One might say he found himself in a dark wood in the middle of life, with neither a Beatrice nor Virgil.
I had to google that reference. Is it about this book? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_and_Virgil