Do you overestimate or underestimate the intelligence of others?

What is more important to you: to communicate your ideas as clearly as possible to the most people possible OR to communicate your ideas as PRECISELY as possible to an audience with a similar frame of reference?

Doesn't stop me doing it, necessarily.

If you were asking do you think other people think you are intelligent, I'd answer probably not.

Glancing, evocative references have I'm sure sent me down more interesting paths than glowing explanatory recommendations, in pop crit terms.

thanks for confirming my suspicions, you heartless basterd (wink wink emoticon)

If anything, I tend to overexplain things.....

In terms of intelligence, I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt (and assume they are smart), until their actions/words prove me wrong.

Sometimes I worry that I don't come off to other people as very intelligent both IRL and on ILX. I think this might be a complex of sorts based on the fact that I tend to assume others think the worst of me in most possible ways and also because I'm very aware of the fact that I've never really lived up to my potential either academically or occupationally. I combination of pretty intense ADD, laziness and a lack of discipline meant that I basically drifted from HS straight through graduate school by putting in the bare minimum required of me and yeah, I regret that now but can't really change it. As a result I feel like I a little about a lot of things but am not particularly knowledgeable in certain subjects despite being really interested in them.

Earlier today I misinterpreted a thread title and have felt dumb/worried about this ever since. I'm wondering if whether or not other ppl perceive them to be intelligent is something else other people are self-conscious about or this is yet another of my weird personal hang-ups.

"I feel like I a little about a lot of things " = I feel like I KNOW a little about a lot . . .

Sometimes I worry that I don't come off to other people as very intelligent both IRL and on ILX.

this surprises me tbh

As a result I feel like I a little about a lot of things but am not particularly knowledgeable in certain subjects despite being really interested in them.

just go apple-t "wiki + [thing you are arguing about]"

Lol oh don't worry I'm hip to the wiki trick but it does often make me feel like a fraud albeit a very knowledgeable one.

spend more time worryin that people think i think i'm more intelligent than i do, tbh.

I think you might just be in a bit of a funk today E, but no imo you dont come off as dumb, or anything like it, at all on ilx- enjoyin dumb jokes, maybe. I dont think you get docked marks for that. I fukn hope not.

You're probably right about the funk but it's something I'm pretty keenly aware of at most times. BTW I didn't post that expecting ppl to be all "u so smart". I'm genuinely interested in whether or not other ppl give thought to this and if so, in which direction.

I've gone through a couple of periods of worrying that I would never be smart enough to count/smart enough to take part in "important" conversations because I never learned theoretical stuff (was de-epmhasized at my school, I think, or I may have just completely overlooked it). I never learned the language of post-modernism, art or lit crit, or any of the writings/ideas/theories about HOW ideas are made and get into wider discussion.

I still don't know any of that shit and I do feel like a real rube sometimes (Rrobyn kindly schooled me last week on a museum field trip) but I just decided it doesn't matter anymore. I'm not going back to school for NOTHIN come hell or high water, so it's just too bad.

personally speaking i've alwsys rathered people assume i was lazy & feckless rather than dumb. I feel it's closer to the truth most of the time the question arises. Never been tested for any of the add's etc but do tend to get distracted or bored very easily indeed. Reasonably confident in my own brightness, so tbh i dont agonise over it a lot.

xp to self: Ditto feminist theory. Any kind of theory, really -- I don't haz it.

I'm not insecure about my intelligence, I guess -- I'm insecure about my education. Which, admittedly, I paid as little attention to as possible while I was getting it.

spend more time worryin that people think i think i'm more intelligent than i do, tbh.

kinda this although maybe not in the same way - i guess that's a certain aspect of advanced studentry, where you can feel like you're kind of bumbling and chancing along and getting caught out as basically peter sellars in being there is just around the corner.

btw ENBB, if you mean the thread i think you mean then imo nakh's use of the term 'anachronism' was highly questionable (or at least a convoluted conceptual game). besides that it's just the classic lazy ilxor move of not really reading the opening post.

o shit i misspelled sellers. don't judge me. :(

YOU FOOLS! I'M THE ONLY ONE WITH ANY INTELLIGENCE AROUND HERE!!!

Only joking, it's good for morale. Sometimes I'm concerned that people might think I'm stupid, or at least lacking knowledge/experience, when I'm talking with them about some technical subject. But that doesn't really matter, because in pretty much any field it's impossible to know everything. Meanwhile, on ILX (and in general social situations) I like stupid wordplay and dumb puns and dad joeks, but I never worry that posting any of those things will make people think I is stupid.

student lamo

xp, tbf

fine head o hair on me though, keeps the brain warm and active.

a steady diet of simpsons episodes has basically made almost anyone with a tv under a certain age smarter on average, methinks.

heat fucks with superconduction asshole, it's why ur laptop has a fan.

ps my phone doesnt notify me of xps, just so we're all clear

you can know a lot of details about particular subjects and chatter on endlessly and still be an epic moron imo.

Very true Omar, very true.

I've gone through a couple of periods of worrying that I would never be smart enough to count/smart enough to take part in "important" conversations because I never learned theoretical stuff (was de-epmhasized at my school, I think, or I may have just completely overlooked it). I never learned the language of post-modernism, art or lit crit, or any of the writings/ideas/theories about HOW ideas are made and get into wider discussion.

Laurel - I completely relate to much of what you said there. I feel like I know a little bit about those things but not enough so that I feel confident engaging in a discussion about them without worrying that I sound clueless. Maybe the problem is more that I'm easily intimidated.

also

I'm not insecure about my intelligence, I guess -- I'm insecure about my education. Which, admittedly, I paid as little attention to as possible while I was getting it.

― I've got ten bucks. SURPRISE ME. (Laurel), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:11 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

This. I don't doubt my own intelligence. I know I'm smart. I guess I doubt my ability to convey that to other people? My education was fine I just worry that I put as little into it as possible and probably got as little out of it as possible in return.

knowing stuff is overrated. being interested in stuff is all that really matters.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ asking questions > offering opinions.

i probably overestimate people whom i respect, or at least find engaging on some level.

..and i prob underestimate everyone else.

multi-xpost

What most people call intelligence seems mostly irrelevant to how I view other people or myself. It rarely, if ever, crosses my mind that someone isn't smart enough for a task or an idea.

In relation to tasks, I think more in terms of whether a person has a talent or training for that job or the reliability to perform it. In relation to ideas, I find that the most useful and important ideas are simple enough that almost everyone can understand them, while exceptionally subtle ideas are rarely important enough for me to care whether others grasp them. Or if I do.

The whole idea of intelligence, as divorced from accomplishment, is a fairly new one. I trace it to the desire of government and other big institutions to identify which painfully young, unformed, and inexperienced students should be force-fed, in the hopes of staying ahead in the arms race. The fact that it sort of worked means the idea of it will stick around, despite it being really warping for those young people.

being fairly well-versed in those fancy theory languages they're as much of a hazard as they are a benefit tbh - v easy that they become an alternative to thinking rather than an addition to it, as anyone who's been around certain kindsa folx will know.

i'm more impressed with people who are always trying to learn and seek knowledge more than those who ramble on and on as if they've already learned everything and now it's just vomiting forth ad nauseum.

it's funny (but not at all surprising) that most people pin the indicators of intelligence to things that they themselves value. writers and people who admire writing pin it to writing ability, clarity and elegance of prose, etc. scientists and technical people to the ability to grasp and process complex information systems. philosophers to cognitive fluidity and associative/integrative ability. wits & thieves to quickness & subtlety. empaths to emotional awareness and life experience. one can easily possess certain forms of intelligence while lacking others.

At work, we'd been looking at Powerpoints for maybe half an hour, and one of my coworkers shouted, "I don't want to look at any more WORDS." Not even read, just look at. As long as you aren't saying stuff *like that* I 99% of the time assume a person is smart in a way I don't know because I don't know them well enough yet.

xp

well i'm not a maths/science genius or anything, just arguing the other corner against communicative ability bias, though i do think it's important in displaying your abilites/inelligence obviously.

btw Er4ica you are probs tired of hearing this by this point in the thread but you are clearly a smart person, no 2 ways about it.

yeah. i'm mystified at the people here who are doubting their intelligence.

or GWB's lack thereof, right Daniel?

oh gwb is plenty bright.

Aw, thank you Abbott. More embarrassed than anything tbh because I realized it may have sounded like I was fishing for that when I wasn't. Was just one of *those* moments. Anyway, pretty glad I did bump this because some of the discussion here has been really interesting imo.

if in doubt, i always check david beckham's last reported income to reset my values on this type of thing

in purely ilx terms i lurked for a long time to avoid seeming naive and dumb. now i accept that sometimes i'm going to seem naive and dumb, so just post away. although i think i'm still mainly resident on the football threads. i guess there we have a bit of a manly 'look he said something dumb, time for some light-natured ribbing then we move on' thing, whereas elsewhere there's the risk of people saying nothing and leaving you to feel that everyone thinks you're dumb but aren't saying anything. which is somehow worse.

in purely ilx terms i lurked for a long time to avoid seeming naive and dumb.

and yr doing a phd in philosophy right? i guess some ppl just worry a lot, unduly

football threads are all challops and nonsense interspersed with pete_w's posts. Comforting entrance to ilx for sure.

and he mostly types crap

nakh attakh

and back to CW Mills I go

thought you were studying science jearnalism or s.th?

omerta

and back to Bush Mills I go

with softer subjects, the quality of expression is very hard to distinguish from the quality of the thought

not in both directions. fine words can easily conceal obtuse arguments.

true-ish -- there isn't an infallible standard for 'quality of expression', but i *don't* just mean it sounds nice. but sure it is a thing to keep in mind.

'quality of expression' the ability to convey the required concept with as little distortion as possible, or somesuch

there's the rub -- distortion *of what*?

there isn't a 'message' that precedes its conversion into words... or is there?

yes. i would argue the coupling between thought and words isn't as tight as you imagine.

nah

suppose it depends on whether we're talking hard data type info or yknow *feelings*, but yeah i guess that definitions lends itself to the former tbf

i don't know the answer

unless there was some machine-code of the brain that you could real off as a pattern of synapses firing, but then how wd you represent that so it cd be understood?

"reel off"

babelfish, obvs

afaik that isn't how the brain is thought to work btw

suppose it depends on whether we're talking hard data type info or yknow *feelings*

bit of an unfair dichotomy. are 'concepts' post-linguistic?

but yr overvaluing verbalisation imo.

suppose it depends on whether we're talking hard data type info or yknow *feelings*, but yeah i guess that definitions lends itself to the former tbf

"Tennyson and Browning are poets; and they think, but they do not feel their thought as immediately as the odour of a rose. A thought to Donne was an experience; it modified his sensibility. When a poet’s mind is perfectly equipped for its work, it is constantly amalgamating disparate experiences; the ordinary man’s experience is chaotic, irregular, fragmentary."

i'm with b streisand on this tbh ledge

linguists don't think of "language" purely in terms of verbalisation, what you're looking for is a medium in which thought cd take place that precedes language as structure. I wd suggest that looking for that leads you into an endless recursion of pre-languages.

or yeah what Eliot (?) said?

i'm with b streisand on this tbh ledge

"Sam, You Made the Pants Too Long"?

ironic that thread about over/underestimating intelligence has these fukn guys bombarding me with the heavy artillery of pre-linguistic theory tbh.

never mistake making stuff up after a couple of absinthes for theory

in the absinthe of a better alternative

also, on a phone so cant c&p which leaves me somewhat at a disadvantage.

Where would purely scientific notation fit into yr 'pre-language' spectrum?

scientific notation's a language, uncontroversially. see also: maths etc.

think of it like "programming language", and thanx for the DN

lol

yeah kickin myself for mithin malithe afore thought

never mistake making stuff up after a couple of absinthes for theory

AKA '19th century Parisian philosophers go out on the piss'

20th century english wasters stay in on the internet

it's 2010, mayne

the opensource of the masses

The OTM of the people