\n<\/p>\n
This is Part 2 in a 4-part series. To read from the start of the series, see <\/em>Part 1<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n In Part 1<\/a> of this series, I shared a secret that some of my fellow Mensans (meaning those with IQs in the top 2 percent of society) also share: I love watching The Real Housewives of Orange County<\/em> (RHOC), a reality show on the Bravo network. This comes as a surprise to some, but less so to those who know how layered reality television can be. In Part 1<\/a>, we explored how RHOC can appeal to those with high IQ by engaging our love for cognitive challenge and complex problem-solving. Now we\u2019ll delve into RHOC’s alignment with some other high-IQ traits.<\/p>\n Openness<\/a>\/Intellect is the Big Five<\/a> trait most tightly bound to intelligence<\/a>, and the strongest links to intelligence<\/a> are facets like \u201cintellectual engagement\u201d and \u201cunconventionality\u201d; big brains like big questions, unusual ideas, abstract debate, and exploring how systems work (Anglim et al., 2022). We find it fascinating to learn new things and enjoy chasing knowledge so that we can level up our understanding of the world around us (Smillie et al., 2021).<\/p>\n RHOC accommodates these preferences. For example, many of the questions RHOC incites for smart viewers are existential in nature. Scholarly viewers are invited to wonder, \u201cWhy are these ladies \u2018haves\u2019 whereas most people are \u2018have nots\u2019?\u201d and \u201cWhy have I been placed in my life and not theirs, and vice versa?\u201d and \u201cWhat, if anything, makes life meaningful?\u201d and more.<\/p>\n Consider the sociological prism through which RHOC refracts the American dream, much like how Edith Wharton’s The House of Mirth<\/em> exposed the gilded cage of high society over a century ago, or how Tennessee Williams\u2019s plays laid Southern charm as a mask over alcoholism<\/a>, financial collapse, sexual<\/a> scandal, and psychological instability. On RHOC, we see privilege masking<\/a>\u2014at times\u2014an underbelly of ambition or uneasiness. Other times, we see wealth unmasked as an illusion, revealing financial woes hiding behind a \u201ckeeping up with the Joneses\u201d fa\u00e7ade. For example, when RHOC\u2019s Lynne Curtin was living in my town of Laguna Beach, her teenage daughters opened the front door of their modern home to a man handing them an eviction notice. Lynne called her husband Frank, who admitted they\u2019d been living beyond their means and couldn\u2019t cover a $10,000 security deposit on the new place<\/a>. The show then cut to Lynne in a subsequent scene, where she went on a girls\u2019 trip and bought herself a $1,185 leather jacket, quipping, \u201cThe check is in the mail,\u201d even as her family was being kicked out of their home. A deep-thinking fan can spend hours pondering the psyche and social factors at play. Some enjoy judging the housewives when spotting irresponsible behavior, but I cannot help but admire the bravery with which cast members open their lives to viewers, flaws and mistakes included, knowing we all have our own flaws and mistakes.<\/p>\n One ironic storyline showed the women nearly unanimously trash-talking the small condo that RHOC\u2019s Gina Kirschenheiter had bought. After all, the other ladies live in lavish homes (one had a backyard playground with the same extravagant pirate ship play structure as our local mega church). But later, we learned that Gina was the only castmate who actually owned her own home<\/em>, by herself<\/em>. This suggested that rather than saving their dimes for home ownership, some of the other ladies were possibly renting above their means or else they had others to help fund their good fortune (often while they were busy with the role of leading the family\u2019s well-being and function). Scenarios like this give gifted minds rich soil to till as they ponder how identity<\/a> and social pressures function and evolve.<\/p>\n Another big question RHOC explores against the backdrop of Orange County’s gated enclaves is that of a woman\u2019s evolving place in the world. RHOC fans are predominantly women\u2014a group historically marginalized. Yet no woman stands behind a man on producer Andy Cohen\u2019s stage. Whereas society has long seemed to want our gender<\/a> to remain silent and polite, RHOC\u2019s women roar. Any housewife who doesn\u2019t quickly find and use her voice doesn\u2019t last long on the show. In particular, the show features women of a more, ahem\u2026seasoned<\/em> age than Hollywood casts in other shows, and on RHOC,<\/em> they look even better as seasons pass, as if conquering time itself. This is a venue for women to stay out of the shadows and speak their minds, and clever minds get to analyze how cast members\u2019 peers, partners, and society respond.<\/p>\n We also get to witness and ponder the very real struggle women face today as we try to be successful on both the home front and the work front, with both roles simultaneously demanding 100 percent from us. Some of the women make this juggle harder on their castmates as tensions spark between the women who have more time on their hands vs. those who are busy juggling a career<\/a>, kids, or both. I know many a Mensan who juggles both demanding roles, including myself. We can relate to the cerebral cravings of RHOC’s sharp Emily Simpson, who left a successful career as an attorney to spend more time with her children, but then added a volunteer role to her plate (helping wrongfully convicted individuals<\/a>), where she gets to apply her brainy expertise.<\/p>\n Other complex struggles we watch and analyze are racial, cultural, or homophobic. We viewers get to see candid responses rather than those filtered through a PR-savvy conscience<\/a> or publicist, providing real data (or as real as we can get with reality TV) for those of us pondering life\u2019s big issues. This sociological lens reveals the show to be a petri dish for observing unfiltered human challenges, needs, and pursuits. Indeed, even Cohen has noted, \u201cThe Housewives<\/em> are reality shows, but they\u2019re more of a docu-series that\u2019s also a sociology lesson\u201d (Stone & Trainor, 2021). This intellectual scaffolding delivered by RHOC transforms viewing into an active pursuit as intellectually rewarding as deconstructing a Shakespearean tragedy, albeit with more vacations and fewer soliloquies. We don\u2019t need iambic pentameter when RHOC’s Vicki Gunvalson can sum up an entire marriage<\/a>\u2019s failure with the metaphor, \u201cMy love tank is empty.\u201d Raw, brilliant, and unexpectedly deep, just like RHOC.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nIntellectual Exploration, Novelty, and \u201cBig Questions\u201d<\/h2>\n