An Intelligence Paradox: Conceptual Research On The Link between High IQ and Neuroticism

 

 “Neuroticism is one of the dimensions of the five-factor personality model and the Big Five personality model characterized by a chronic level of emotional instability and proneness to psychological distress” (APA Dictionary of Psychology, n.d.). Intelligence according to the American Psychological Association is "the ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, and to overcome obstacles through thought" (APA, 1996).

The literature work by Karpinski et al. (2017) researches the correlation between high intelligence and psychological overexcitability. The research explores the connection between possessing hypercognitive abilities and experiencing heightened emotional, sensory, and immune responses. The sample for data collection included 3,715 participants from Mensa, a society for individuals with IQs in the top 2%. The prevalence of psychological and physiological challenges faced by this group was significantly higher than the national average. It was found that individuals within Mensa were more likely to suffer from mood disorders, anxiety, ADHD, and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Further, Karpinski et al. (2017) found increased rates of autoimmune diseases, asthma, and food allergies in the sample.

Research on emotional intensity has concluded that these intensities and vulnerability manifest earlier on in life. Gere, Capps, Mitchell, and Grubbs (2009) observed heightened emotional responses in gifted children, which they believed would later develop into clinical psychological disorders. Findings signified that gifted children displayed heightened emotional responses as compared to their peers who had average intelligence. Gifted children with high intellectual abilities have also been said to display asynchronous development where their intellect develops but their emotional regulation remains immature (Neihart, 1999). In evaluation, gifted children with a higher intellect may be at a higher risk of developing certain mood disorders due to the emotional dysregulation they may face and cognitive overload, leading to internal conflicts early on in life and isolation from peers (Silverman, 1993).

Several geniuses who displayed emotional sensitivity in their early childhood later faced psychological challenges. Edgar Allan Poe, Virginia Woolf, and Isaac Newton known for their geniuses in their respective field of work, faced immense psychological challenges. Edgar Allan Poe suffered from depression and alcoholism which shaped his dark gothic literature work. Virginia Woolf who allegedly had bipolar disorder created modernistic works but ultimately took her own life and Isaac Newton a physics and mathematics genius seemed to have social anxiousness (Simonton, 2017). The connection between intelligence and neuroticism can be understood through the perspective of cognitive load (Sweller, 1994). Individuals with higher IQs might demonstrate increased emotional reactivity because their cognitive processes are more intensely engaged with complex information. This heightened mental activity could amplify their sensitivity to emotional stimuli, as their deeper analytical thought patterns demand more mental resources. Consequently, they might be more vulnerable to stress and overthinking, contributing to the traits associated with neuroticism. This illustrates the complex relationship between heightened cognitive abilities and sensitivity to mood disorders and neuroticism.

To overcome this in the real world, intellectual people need to be encouraged to seek forms of therapy.

There is a common hypothesis that being more intelligent should lead to therapeutic success based on the assumption that individuals who understand the complexities of therapy better will respond to it more effectively. However, having high intelligence doesn't protect someone from developing depression if they also have high levels of neuroticism (Navrady et al., 2017).

Haaga et al. (1991) aimed to test if intelligence specifically fluid and crystallized intelligence would predict better outcomes in cognitive therapy for individuals with conditions such as major depressive disorder or generalized anxiety disorder. Fluid intelligence is operationalised by the ability to reason and solve new problems, while crystallized intelligence involves knowledge gained from past learning and experiences. Findings suggested that contrary to expectations, individuals with higher intelligence might fare worse or, at the very least, not show as much improvement in therapy. This means that there was no strong or reliable evidence showing that individuals with higher intelligence were more likely to experience a reduction in their symptoms compared to those with lower intelligence.

Knekt et al. (2014) explored the role of intelligence in predicting the effectiveness of short-term versus long-term therapy for individuals with mood or anxiety disorders. Findings from the study indicate that individuals with higher intelligence showed significant improvements in psychiatric symptoms and psychosocial functioning over the long term, as compared to the short term. This could be justified by the fact that highly intelligent individuals may require more time to develop the necessary emotional insight and coping strategies due to the complexities of their thought patterns, as well as their predisposition to neuroticism. The relationship between intelligence and therapy outcomes has been complex, particularly when it comes to the depth and duration of behavioural and emotional change. Highly intelligent individuals may quickly grasp the conceptual framework of therapy, such as cognitive-behavioural techniques, insight into emotional patterns, and the ability to recognize the influence of past experiences on present behaviours, therefore intelligence may expedite this initial phase of therapy, enabling them to engage effectively with the therapeutic process and comprehend abstract psychological ideas properly than individuals with lower cognitive capacity.

However, while intelligence might facilitate an intellectual understanding of therapy concepts, this doesn't translate into immediate behavioural or emotional transformation. The distinction between intellectual insight and emotional processing is critical here. In therapy, intellectual understanding is often just the first step, real change typically requires working through deep-rooted emotions, unconscious beliefs, and ingrained behaviours. This process takes time, especially for highly intelligent individuals who might be more prone to intellectualize their emotions or experiences. Such intellectualization can sometimes become a defence mechanism, shielding the person from deeper emotional work by focusing on analysis rather than emotional experiences.

Long-term therapy provides sustainable support that is needed to move beyond cognitive insight and engage in a more gradual, often uncomfortable process of emotional exploration and behavioural change. They might need more time and professional support to dismantle rigid patterns of thinking or cope with emotional complexities that their intelligence alone cannot help solve.

Additionally, intelligent individuals, particularly those high in neuroticism, might overthink or excessively ruminate on their problems, which can lead to cycles of self-criticism or doubt. Long-term therapy gives them the space to not only analyse their issues but also work through them in a more balanced and holistic way. In conclusion, the findings from the Helsinki Psychotherapy Study suggest that long-term therapy may be more effective than short-term therapy for highly intelligent individuals, particularly in cases where neuroticism is a prominent feature.

Highly intelligent individuals may be more inclined to question or challenge their therapist's guidance during cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). This tendency arises from their strong analytical abilities and habit of critically examining information. Rather than accepting therapeutic techniques, they may scrutinize or debate the rationale behind certain interventions, which can slow the process of positive change.

For example, when asked to reframe negative thoughts or beliefs, an intelligent person might engage in extensive reasoning, questioning whether the alternative perspectives offered by the therapist are truly valid or applicable to their life. This intellectual engagement can become a form of resistance in therapy. Instead of focusing on emotional or behavioural change, they might get stuck in debates or overthinking, which delays the intended therapeutic progress.

Moreover, highly intelligent individuals may feel that they have already thought through many of the solutions being presented in therapy, leading them to dismiss advice or resist trying techniques they view as simple. While their critical thinking is an asset, when it comes to therapy it can also act as a barrier to fully embracing the treatment process. This can even contribute to feelings of frustration if they perceive the therapy as not sufficiently challenging or insightful.

In certain cases intellectual individuals who understand themselves and the world around them thoroughly may feel that they are superior to therapy because they understand its frameworks, making them reluctant to seek treatment when facing psychological challenges.

Mind, Millinery, and Meaning: A Feminist Reappraisal of George Eliot’s Critique

The Silly Novels by Lady Novelists is an essay published in 1856 by “George Eliot” which was the pseudo-name for female Victorian writer Mary Ann Evans. The essay criticizes a particular genre, comprising of novels typically written by women, which was considered fatuous unrealistic, and preachy. This type of literature was especially famous amongst Victorian women at the time. Eliot uses the term “Mind and Millinery novels” to describe the literature she rejected. Mind represents intellectual depth and introspection whereas Millinery is a term used to describe fashion so together these two terms indicate that these types of novels tried to depict profoundly deep issues in a superficial, fashionable, and decorated manner.

To understand the undertones that this essay carries we first must dissect what the term “silly novels” implies in this context. In Victorian England, “silly” was an adjective often used harshly against women, especially in intellectual spaces. Calling a woman silly wasn't just about being artistically bad but it was undermining the entire gender's intellectual credibility. Men often used the term to belittle women’s issues and diminish their voice in ways that reflected deeply rooted beliefs about female inferiority, emotional fragility, and even intellectual inadequacy. The term functioned not only as a description of foolish behavior but as a tool of control to silence women's ideas and reinforce misogyny. It was a subtle way of saying “You don’t understand the world. You’re being dramatic. You should leave the thinking to men.”

The fact that this term has been used by a woman- Mary Ann Evans to describe other women, can be considered a revealing factor that her critique stems from a place of internalized misogyny. She perhaps believed that women should not create literature within a genre that is unacceptable to men. So ultimately, it can be argued that her critique wasn't just constructive but also a way to demean women’s writing in a way that a Victorian man would have at the time.

Another argument would be that George Eliot does not oppose women writing novels but she passionately believes that their literary potential could be used in ways to make an impact. Her critique aims to encourage women to write with greater intellectual depth and moral seriousness in a way that reflects real human experience. She is right to assume that these novels with recurring themes of a brooding hero and an unrealistically perfect heroine reinforce narratives of Victorian society that are impossible to achieve. These narratives may even profoundly impact young women who are not like the heroine and are not conventionally attractive or wealthy. She aimed to encourage women to contribute to the literature in significant ways and not give into empty verbosity and false elegance. Eliot was also sympathetic to the root causes that would have driven women to write such “silly” novels. She reflects upon the economic realities that led many women to become writers. She states that “We had imagined that destitute women turned novelists, as they turned governesses because they had no other “ladylike” means of getting their bread”. She draws attention to the limited options available to the middle-class women at the time who desperately needed to earn a living in a socially respectable manner.

On one hand, it can be said that Eliot was a feminist for wanting women to redirect their narratives from ones that were originally created by patriarchy, by creating higher standards in women’s writing. On the other hand, one might question who defined what a “high standard” is in the first place. Why should it be so unacceptable for “silly” novels to exist, and for women to fantasize about a perfect life and perfect hero? And isn’t feminism all about freedom of choice and self-expression for women? The truth is, regardless of the arguable criticism that these novels by lady novelists might receive, they had a well-established audience and market for them. Many Victorian women were drawn to sentimental and romantic stories because they offered them an emotional and imaginative escape from the restrictive realities of their own harsh lives. This attraction to escapist fiction reveals both a craving for a meaningful identity and a resignation to the confinement of the female imagination. George Eliot recognized this tension. Her criticism in the essay is feminist in spirit, as she wanted women to expect more from literature and themselves.

However, this is not to say that “silly novels” cannot coexist with more complex and deeply psychological ones written by women. While feminism champions freedom of choice and self-expression, it also involves embracing diverse perspectives. It's important to accept all forms of women’s writing while continuing to resist patriarchy’s attempts to suppress the female voice.

Art vs Artifice: The moral compass of Jane Eyre

 Charlotte Bronte uses the contrast between art which is a tool for inner expression and creativity, and artifice which is used as a mask for social survival to narrate the extensive nature of Jane's integrity and honesty.

Jane is seen constantly rejecting societal artifice and she refuses to play roles that deny her self-hood. Jane does not want to perform and instead aims to assert her truth even when no one is watching. This is seen especially within her art that she creates from a very young age despite having no audience to show. Creating art is not only a hobby for Jane but also a medium that allows her to express herself in a way that may seem unacceptable in traditional Victorian society. Her sketches are not romantic landscapes with a conventional backstory or a Romeo and Juliet trope, her images are surreal, and symbolic and often depict a sense of melancholy and loneliness. For example, Jane draws a shipwreck with a drowned corpse “Foregrounded was the mast of a ship wrecked in stormy seas. A corpse, hair streaming, was bound to the mast. A giant arm emerged from a cloud above, holding a shroud ready to enwrap the dead figure.” The shipwreck may represent despair and emotional drowning, while the giant arm with a shroud may represent divine intervention and judgment which are religious frameworks that encompass Janes's own faith in god. Jane’s work mirrors her soul, where art is used as a language of truth and forthrightness to manifest her own narratives and beliefs into physical abstraction.

Jane is seen criticising the artifice of Victorian social norms especially those imposed on women such as Blanche Ingram. Blanche is beautiful fashionable and witty, she performs the roles of an ideal Victorian woman. However, beneath her cultivated charms lies cruelty, vanity, and calculated moves made to capture a position in society. She is inauthentic and wears a mask of elegance to impress people and lure a wealthy husband like Rochester. She even uses forms of art for purposes different from Janes. She has musical abilities but uses them not as a form of self-expression but rather as a means to attract male validation.

Similarly, Mr Brocklehurst is a symbol or moral artifice, he preaches Christian humility to the girls at Lowood by forbidding them to dress up and have curls in their hair, not out of piety but to assert control. He is not virtuous, he simply tries to manipulate the appearance of young girls as a way to feel powerful and dominant. His hypocrisy and moral questionability become glaringly evident when his own wife and daughter arrive at the school adorned with extravagant clothing and hairstyles. This reveals the double standards and self-serving nature of his moral grandstanding.

Even Rochester’s entire relationship with Jane is based on a concealed truth: the existence of his wife Bertha Mason. He attempts to dress Jane in fine clothes and gift her with luxuries, however, Jane recognises that these are not acts of love. Rochester's subtle attempt at moulding Jane into a more “proper” looking lady suitable for him to marry represents the artifice that he imposes upon Jane. Jane stays authentic here too by refusing a comfortable and lavish lifestyle with a wealthy man like Rochester even when deeply in love. She finds no comfort in being a mistress, although it would be the easier decision, she chooses her self-respect, she says “I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad—as I am now”. Leaving behind physical and transient comfort, Jane seeks a path that is authentic and built on her terms. She knows love without truth is a form of spiritual death.

What sets Jane apart from her surroundings is her unwavering commitment to emotional and moral truth. Even as a child, she stands for herself against Mrs Reed when faced with injustice. She declares to Mrs Reed “You are deceitful”. Her honesty is dangerous in a world that punishes women for speaking too boldly, yet Jane never retreats into passivity, false performance, and artifice. 

A woman set aflame: what role did Bertha Mason play in the Jane Eyre novel?

In the novel, Bertha is the plot obstacle for Jane and Rochester’s romance. However, feminist readings have created meaningful analogies on what the tragic character of Bertha Mason could represent. “The Mad Woman in the Attic” is a novel that has served as a groundbreaking feminist literary piece by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar. It makes direct references to the character of Bertha Mason from the novel and uses her character as a central metaphor for how women have been silenced, repressed, and misrepresented in Victorian literature written by men. They argue that Bertha Mason is the dark suppressed double of Jane and is a symbol of the anger and frustration faced by her as she is trapped in a patriarchal system.

Critics have said that Bertha is “the monstrous embodiment of psychosexual conflicts which are intrinsic to the romantic predicament- paralleled and unconscious in both Jane and Rochester”. This suggests that Bertha is not just a madwoman in the novel but she is the physical embodiment of what is repressed or suppressed within Jane herself. Bertha is everything a woman is forbidden to be in Victorian England. In a society where women are expected to be composed, obedient, and rational, Bertha is the opposite. She is unhinged, chaotic, frantic, and untamable. She is described in animalistic and dehumanising terms and her mere existence showcases how men in a Victorian society locked away or silenced women who would not conform to the ideals they imposed upon them.

Bertha is not only mentally ill but she is the symbolic consequence of a world that suffocates female agency. It can be hypothesised that Jane sees in her a dangerous image of self expression through chaos and anger. Jane too embodies this somewhere in her unconscious however she cannot safely express it within the constraints of Victorian respectability. Marriage in the 19^th century often meant loss of agency and autonomy for women and Bertha's actions manifest in a way that Janes's unconscious mind was feeling. For example, the act of Bertha tearing Jane's wedding veil with her haunting presence at night can be read as a symbolic enactment of Jane dreading to marry Rochester because she fears dependency and the loss of her autonomy.

While using symbolism and metaphors to understand Bertha Mason can add depth and abstraction to the Jane Eyre novel, it is important to also assess the situation for its stark reality. The truth is that Rochester uses Bertha as a means to an end both emotionally and socially. He marries her not out of love, but due to family pressure and the lure of wealth. His family imposes the marriage upon him to secure a large dowry while deliberately hiding from him the reality of Bertha's family history of mental illness. After marriage when Rochester discovers the truth about her behaviour and illness, he chooses to hide her away in the attic, stripping her of basic needs and humanity. He speaks of her as a burden and a shadow over his own happiness, and he uses her condition as a justification for his own emotional suffering and moral compromise. Yet he is deceptive and pursues relationships with other women including Jane all while being legally married.

The truth is that Bertha is in fact a real woman within the book and is denied a voice, locked away like an inconvenience, and made out to be a monster. She is used as a scapegoat for Rochester to receive sympathy from Jane and ultimately Bertha becomes a mere obstacle that needs to be removed before he can “earn” a new life with Jane. The interpretations must not understate the undeniable existence of a woman who was ultimately destroyed to serve as an instrument to Rochester's redemption and “happy” ending. Her fate reflects the darkest underside of what many mentally ill or unstable women faced in Victorian society, where nonconforming was met with dehumanisation and being locked away both metaphorically and literally. 

Feminism through the lens of Jane Eyre

Feminism is constantly showcased through the liberating choices Jane makes on her terms as a woman living in 19th-century Victorian England. She consistently seeks independence and a life that is created by herself in an honest and morally integral manner.

After spending nearly 8 years at Lowood Institution she expresses in chapter 10 how she desires liberty and desperately prays for god to grant her a new servitude. This moment marks how her servitude at Lowood has come to an end and she realizes that her mind and spirit are constrained by the routine and isolation of the place she has lived at for nearly a decade, she now craves a soul that experiences the profound depths of companionship, adventure, new choices, and love. She wants to create a transformation in her life- from passive servitude at Lowood to active selfhood that can be given to her through exploration of a new perspective experience. Hence, she uses her education to advertise herself and embarks on a journey to become a governess to her pupil Adele Varens at the lavish Thornfield Hall.

There too, she is faced by many dilemmas that she tackles by exercising her autonomy and freedom of choice. Jane becomes especially aware of her needs and desires and her sense of morality as she chooses to flee Thornfield, leaving Rochester behind after she learns that he is already married. She finds no comfort in being a mistress, although it would be the easier decision, she refuses to sacrifice herself and instead chooses her self-respect, she says “I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad—as I am now”. Leaving behind physical and transient comfort, Jane seeks a path that is built on her terms and enables her virtues as a self-respecting woman and a moralistic Christian.

This event in the novel marks a profound feminist act taken by Jane. She believes that she deserves more than being the mistress of a man who has been dishonest with her. Although she loves Rochester, she refuses to sacrifice her dignity and the love she believes she is in full right of receiving. Victorian England was a society that often expected women to be submissive to patriarchal power, especially to a man with economic and class-related power who was willing to provide for a woman. In this dynamic, Rochester is at a position of authority as her employer and is wealthy. He can give Jane the luxuries that she has been deprived of as a poor orphan, however, she refuses to be owned and become his possession. She says to Rochester “I am no bird, and no net ensnares me: I am a free human being with an independent will which I now exert to leave you”.

Further, Jane rejects the Victorian norm that a woman’s worth is tied to her beauty and status. She says to Rochester “Do you think I am an automaton? — a machine without feelings?... Do you think because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am soulless and heartless?”. Jane only returns to Rochester after he is free of his previous marriage with Bertha Maison and Jane has inherited a fortune from her Uncle. This allows her to go back to the dynamic with a sense of equality between Jane and Rochester not only in terms of financial status but also in terms of morality. Rochester has paid his price or even Karmic debt for locking Bertha Maison in the attic and deceiving those around him- especially Jane. For this act he committed, he loses an eye and a limb in a fire which also causes him to lose the Thornfield Hall mansion. Only after this incident is he able to attain the moral clarity and integrity necessary to becoming worthy of marrying someone like Jane, who has always remained true to her principles and true to herself.

The novel ends with Janes closing tribute to St John who poses as a rigid and patriarchal figure in the novel. Jane's rejection of him is not just personal and because she is in love with another man, but she also rejects the rigid Christian worldview that he presents. St John’s religious mission can be seen as a tool for male dominance and it seems unfair for St John to impose his individual beliefs on to Jane and expect her to sacrifice her desires for love to become his companion on a mission in a foreign land. He tells her “God and nature intended you for a missionary’s wife. It is not personal but mental endowments they have given you; you are formed for labor, not love. A missionary’s wife you must—shall be. You shall be mine; I claim you—not for my pleasure, but for my Sovereign’s service.” His neglect of Jane’s individuality is demeaning as he implies that her values and needs lie in her usefulness to his goals reinstating the patriarchal view set by men in the Victorian era.

Further, Jane approaches the idea of marriage with introspection by critically questioning the character of the man she is to marry rather than merely conforming to the societal expectation of marriage. For example Jane writes- “St. John was a good man; but I began to feel he had spoken truth of himself when he said he was hard and cold. The humanities and amenities of life had no attraction for him…he would never rest, nor approve of others resting round him…I comprehended, all at once, that he would hardly make a good husband; that it would be a trying thing to be his wife”. Here she is viewing St John not as a potential suitor but as a human who could impact her happiness and desires profoundly.

In a time when women were denied their right to shape their own futures, Jane took a stand for herself and refused the reduction of herself to an instrument of male purpose.