There is irony in the fact that you have related a personal event to make your point that relating personal events do not lend to good conversation.

Hehe. It was an appropriate anecdote, though. And maybe some of the points made by your colleagues were appropriate, as well. Not having been there, I couldn't say.

I agree with your point that "an open mind to listening is basic to a good talk." And I also think that conversation is possible between people of divergent interests and educational levels - perhaps Pfranz's post was a bit of deliberate hyperbole? Nevertheless, while I disagree with the extreme view, I agree with the thrust of what he said. It is often difficult for people of different intelligences, experiences, education, backgrounds to actually savor one another's conversation.

I find myself - despite my best intentions - becoming irritated at conversation with people when I believe they are not up to the task. I try to tone things down and communicate on their level, but I often feel condescending when I do so (because I *am* being condescending). OTOH, as I surround myself with friends who are great deal smarter than I am, I feel quite fortunate that they condescend to explain their opinions in a way that even I can understand.

As for the point-scoring that both of you mention, I wonder whether this is an effect of two things - really the same thing in two venues. First, the fact that our school systems (especially hs and university systems) have professors who make their livings largely by being iconoclasts. There is a bit of (poor) reasoning that makes people think "Well, Professor X says some outlandish - and largely correct - thing and he's widely recognized as brilliant, so if I say something outlandish I'll be perceived as brilliant." -- Example: DeGenova wishing aloud that Mogadishu was repeated a million times (18 US soldiers died, and an estimated 300-1000 Somalians ... uh, yea, *that* would sure teach the Americans).

Second, the exact thing has happened on the net where some of the bright pioneers were a bit terse, sardonic, and yes occasionally downright acerbic, so the newcomers enter, see what's going on and think to themselves, "See? All I have to do is act obnoxious and people will perceive my intelligence."

It's largely because of my perhaps faulty perceptions in this regard that I've long been an advocate for the rehabilitation of honest ignorance.

I think this is related to the post about the mice who use "tools" to prevent themselves from getting lost. Often in conversation, and in general interaction with others, we respond to intelligence only when we recognize it. Here these mice have been doing this for who knows how long and we only just figured out they were doing it. Same with the bee-dances. When we talk with someone else, we like to feel that something is being communicated. We all have our comfort zones. The farther from the zone, the less we recognize and the more uncomfortable we feel. Sometimes we exercise docimasy as a way of doing in conversation what the mouse does in the maze - to get our bearings in the local terrain. But it takes some effort. And it's not perfect. The problem remains. How do you recognize intelligence when it manifests itself in a form with which you are unfamiliar?

k