The reason why many highly intelligent or deeply skilled individuals struggle to remain in large groups of “similar” people is more nuanced than it appears. In social environments, similarities and shared activities often become tools for gaining status, influence, or validation. Group dynamics tend to reward conformity and signaling rather than independent reasoning, which naturally discourages people who value authenticity and intellectual autonomy.

Most people place great trust in individuals or groups that would discard them the moment their interests diverge. This isn’t necessarily malicious, it’s a reflection of basic social incentives and coalitional behavior. Others adopt diplomacy not as a path to understanding, but as a strategy for gaining social capital by aligning with the majority.

Within these groups, many members are not necessarily independent thinkers. They often operate as part of a social structure where influence is based on conformity, not depth. When asked for an opinion that challenges the group’s norms, they tend to repeat pre-fabricated arguments or struggle to express a thought that hasn’t already been supplied to them. Their identity is tied to the group, not to their own reasoning.

By contrast, individuals who think deeply and independently usually feel out of place in environments dominated by social signaling. They prefer solitude or small, meaningful connections over the political and performative nature of large groups.

Real thinkers aren’t the loneliest, but they are the most selective.

References

Don’t trust me? Check for yourself:

Intelligence, Social Behavior, and Preference for Solitude

Social Capital, Diplomacy, and Strategic Behavior

Yelp and the Wisdom of “The Lonely Crowd”