Downplaying your Intelligence

In the hierarchy of conceit, intelligence reigns.

Thread

If you want to soften people’s guard, the evident faculty to downplay is intelligence, but the other two facets to downplay are judgement and experience as both draw up close to intellect on the hierarchy of conceit.
Make them feel superior to you in these faculties, and you will have them at the tip of your fingers.

It is the ideal camouflage to seem less clever than you are and at times, somewhat of an idiot to confound people.
The sense of intellectual superiority you can induce in people by means of cognitive reassurance through indirect modes will lay down their doubt and suppositions and will be coerced easier to your side.
Do not communicate this implication through direct means, though, utilise concealed and roundabout methods as these are more subtle and potent.

A gesture of admiration at their intellectual ability, for instance, can go a long way.
Remember: It will not serve you to divulge and show off your intelligence, especially if you are incalculably superior, make it habitual to denigrate your intelligence continually.

When you have power, do not be overt about it.

Feign a lesser position.
On the other hand, you can’t carry yourself in a half-witted manner, especially if you have people above you who are superiors, you must make it apparent, through your eloquence and articulation, that you are brighter than your rivalries.
As you are more established, though, you must carefully lessen your genius to keep people on your side.

Lastly, if people discover the truth underlying your modesty and humbleness, they will not resent you for it.
Instead, they will admire your capacity for discretion rather than exhibiting your great intellect among everyone.

There is but one exception, of course, where it will serve your benefit to oppose this rule.
There will be conditions where masking a deception will demand a display of brainpower, in such circumstances, do not conceal it but encompass it.

More from For later read

Ester Ranzen/ Childline/BBC/Saville/Mandelson 👀👇


1. 'MYSTERIOUS ESTHER RANTZEN' ..2017
https://t.co/aBsJL2Avqd


2. (Let's This Party Started) Keith Vaz and Ester Ranzen.


3. 'BBC'S ESTHER RANTZEN LINKED TO ELM GUEST HOUSE' https://t.co/a064KgW8LJ


4. Esther Rantzen is quizzed about Jimmy Savile - 2012

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.