Discussion How I can tell if someone is stupid

[mjölk]

the two depends, for example i get very excited when talking and analyzing periodic functions especially when we talk about the complex plane but i understand it's scope of utility is pretty limited. but to me is fun to think about.

Yeah I think theres def a difference between being excited about something youre interested in. I think it becomes different when the thing youre excited about is a small fact whilst also being uninterested or ignorant about the rest of the topic.

the first one could also be a red herring, as socrates famously did that, just for the other person walk himself into a contradicction

I dont rlly see how its a red herring.

Even if they disagree, understanding would mean they are able to provide an argument against it that contradicts my statement. If they dont, I cant add new information to “refute their refutation”, and instead I have to repeat my statement.

 

[AlexandertheGreat]

I see many people on here who judge other peoples intelligence by the amount of relevant knowledge they have, or even the amount if agreeable opinions.

I wont even speak about judging based on opinions, but for knowledge, any stupid person can type a google search or ask chat gpt about the current topic. Any stupid person can do their research or have an interest in the topic. You will never know who took 1 hour to learn something, and who took 1 week to learn the same thing.


I can tell when someone is less intelligent by:

1. Their ability to understand simple concepts when explained to them
When it comes to logic. They dont need to agree with you neither does it need to be part of a debate, but stupid people will often respond to your statement with something that requires you to repeat your statement instead of refuting you, simply because they dont understand the contradiction or distinction.

2. How enthusiastic they are about certain concepts
For example, if a stupid person learns a new fact or topic, they will often exaggerate the importance of that fact or the complexity of the topic. The fact is most likely a fun fact with very little importance in the equation, but since they just wanna talk about their newly learnt fact and seem smart, they will speak about it as if it contributes more to the product than it actually does. If it is a topic, it could be something that we all couldve understood by a 2 sentence explanation, but that they see the need to write an essay about.

3. Their ability to follow in a conversation
When talking to stupid people, you will often have to keep going back in the conversation after realising they didnt understand something. The conversation first moves at a normal phase because you keep moving on to the next sub-topic, but eventually you will get stuck and have to look back in the convo to re-explain something that they have already responded to and seemingly understood, because they contradicted that explanation 10 messages later. Then the going back and fourth will confuse them even further and the conversation will be impossible to conclude.

@arya @PingPong @necrotic @Newday

4. He/she is black
Thats the biggest sign
@TonyDr

 

[PingPong]

@Duchesse @Duchess

 

[icnone]

Well I guess the 1st applies to you

i think the 1st actually applies to you
intelligence can mean a variety of things depending on the context
furthermore you have to distinguish between regular intelligence and emotional intelligence

 

[2R0I2P0]

i think the 1st actually applies to you
intelligence can mean a variety of things depending on the context
furthermore you have to distinguish between regular intelligence and emotional intelligence

i believe regular inteligence if high can help you acquire the latter don't you think?

 

[icnone]

i believe regular inteligence if high can help you acquire the latter don't you think?

autism is a good example
when you have autism your emotional intelligence is impaired
but some of the smartest people in history (newton for instance) have displayed autistic symptoms

 

[ryu]

Self-refuting thread

 

[mjölk]

i think the 1st actually applies to you
intelligence can mean a variety of things depending on the context
furthermore you have to distinguish between regular intelligence and emotional intelligence

And how would you judge someones emotional intelligence when its purely subjective. You missed the point of the thread.

 

[2R0I2P0]

And how would you judge someones emotional intelligence when its purely subjective. You missed the point of the thread.

intelligence as such is as well subjective, iq itself has different scales that work better but the methodology and the idea behind the design of the test is subjective as is.

autism is a good example
when you have autism your emotional intelligence is impaired
but some of the smartest people in history (newton for instance) have displayed autistic symptoms

yes, nonetheless i think if you have someone smart enough, he could learn the social queues while still having an impaired feeling

 

[icnone]

And how would you judge someones emotional intelligence when its purely subjective. You missed the point of the thread.

I do not understand why God gave foids impaired intelligence and forced us to deal with them.

The original question was whether you can tell somebody is intelligent or not, and for that you have to be very clear what you mean by "intelligence" because there are multiple distinct meanings that lead to different answers. Furthermore, arguing that since EQ is purely subjective it is impossible to judge someone's EQ is unfounded. IQ itself is subjective, but we have managed to quantify it through metrics that we have largely agreed upon. What is stopping us from doing the same for EQ? We certainly have agreement on some general notion of EQ - if we saw an emotionally dumb and smart person, most people would say those two have low and high EQ respectively. Subjectivity does not mean we cannot judge outright.

 

[icnone]

yes, nonetheless i think if you have someone smart enough, he could learn the social queues while still having an impaired feeling

It is possible in theory but very difficult in practice. IQ relies more on your left hemisphere of your brain, whereas EQ relies more on your right one. Trying to use logic to understand and process emotions is going to far slower and more inaccurate than using EQ directly. The timing delay is going to bleed off and be very visible in social interactions, where latency is key.

 

[2R0I2P0]

I do not understand why God gave foids impaired intelligence and forced us to deal with them.

The original question was whether you can tell somebody is intelligent or not, and for that you have to be very clear what you mean by "intelligence" because there are multiple distinct meanings that lead to different answers. Furthermore, arguing that since EQ is purely subjective it is impossible to judge someone's EQ is unfounded. IQ itself is subjective, but we have managed to quantify it through metrics that we have largely agreed upon. What is stopping us from doing the same for EQ? We certainly have agreement on some general notion of EQ - if we saw an emotionally dumb and smart person, most people would say those two have low and high EQ respectively. Subjectivity does not mean we cannot judge outright.

good take

 

[mjölk]

intelligence as such is as well subjective, iq itself has different scales that work better but the methodology and the idea behind the design of the test is subjective as is

emotional intelligence doesnt really compare in subjectiveness. Feelings are unique and cant be judged in an unbiased way. You would need to really know the person to gather enough information about the circumstances that affect emotional intelligence.

The guy I quoted obviously didnt understand the thread like many others. Ofc knowledge, emotional intelligence, articulation, etc are all indicators of intelligence, but they are unknown to you when you meet or talk to a new person. The ones I listed are picked out of a bunch of indicators based on how little context they require.

Even with the points I stated there can be unknown circumstances that affect the correctness of your judgement, but they are extremely minimal compared to any other indicator of intelligence.

 

[mjölk]

I do not understand why God gave foids impaired intelligence and forced us to deal with them

Immediately i know that youre dysfunctional when you speak like this.

The original question was whether you can tell somebody is intelligent or not, and for that you have to be very clear what you mean by "intelligence" because there are multiple distinct meanings that lead to different answers.

No you do not, because intelligence is a spectrum. You can be smart or stupid in many different ways. Its not possible without extensive effort to define a persons intelligence across all categories, and therefore the 3 mentioned are your best options.

Furthermore, arguing that since EQ is purely subjective it is impossible to judge someone's EQ is unfounded. IQ itself is subjective, but we have managed to quantify it through metrics that we have largely agreed upon.

Unfortunately because something is largely agreed upon, it doesnt become objective in this situation especially. The majority could be wrong or the majority could be right. When there isnt any proof it is ultimately subjective.

 

[icnone]

Immediately i know that youre dysfunctional when you speak like this.

I wonder what your IQ test results would be

No you do not, because intelligence is a spectrum. You can be smart or stupid in many different ways.

"intelligence is a scalar quantity"
"intelligence has many categories"

it doesnt become objective in this situation especially. The majority could be wrong or the majority could be right

"it's not objective"
"the majority could be right or wrong"
if it is not objective, then right or wrong is subjective

 

[mjölk]

I wonder what your IQ test results would be

I wonder what yours is when you arent able to understand the original post, and instead of listening you begin to insult.

"intelligence is a scalar quantity"
"intelligence has many categories"

First of all, i did not say intelligence is a scalar quantity. Not once did i mention the word “iq” in this thread. Second, these quotes dont contradict each other if thats what you meant to do.

"the majority could be right or wrong"
if it is not objective, then right or wrong is subjective

I didnt say that the majority is wrong or right, I said they could be either…because its subjective. I dont think you even understand what im saying.

 

[icnone]

I wonder what yours is when you arent able to understand the original post, and instead of listening you begin to insult.

foid mad

First of all, i did not say intelligence is a scalar quantity.

you said:

intelligence is a spectrum.

A spectrum is a scalar quantity. Also

Second, these quotes dont contradict each other if thats what you meant to do.

Compressing multiple metrics into a single scalar will be lossy. Unless you have found a way to do it losslessly. in which case you are a genius sitting on an idea worth billions of dollars. Otherwise, you are losing information across multiple categories when you do so.

I said they could be either…because its subjective.

There is no right or wrong to begin with if you are discussing a subjective quality. There are simply opinions, and we can aggregate those opinions to quantify a subjective quality.

 

[mjölk]

A spectrum is a scalar quantity. Also

No, a spectrum is usually not a scalar quantity by itself, its a distribution of values. To say that intelligence is a spectrum just means that it varies across a range.

Compressing multiple metrics into a single scalar will be lossy.

As I explained more clearly a few messages ago quoting the second guy in here, and as i insinuated in the original post, my list is the *least* “lossy”. Not without loss. That was the entire point of the thread, that judging someones intelligence by their knowledge requires a life long amount of knowledge and understanding of the person which you never have, and therefor it is too “lossy”. Judging by how fast they are unbiasedly able to process things, learn things, and apply them is the most reasonable option if you do not have years to understand the circumstances of someones mental capacity.

There is no right or wrong to begin with if you are discussing a subjective quality. There are simply opinions, and we can aggregate those opinions to quantify a subjective quality.

No, there is always an absolute reality whether its impossible for man to know or not.

 

[2R0I2P0]

emotional intelligence doesnt really compare in subjectiveness. Feelings are unique and cant be judged in an unbiased way. You would need to really know the person to gather enough information about the circumstances that affect emotional intelligence.

The guy I quoted obviously didnt understand the thread like many others. Ofc knowledge, emotional intelligence, articulation, etc are all indicators of intelligence, but they are unknown to you when you meet or talk to a new person. The ones I listed are picked out of a bunch of indicators based on how little context they require.

Even with the points I stated there can be unknown circumstances that affect the correctness of your judgement, but they are extremely minimal compared to any other indicator of intelligence.

let's exemplify why feelings can and should be quantified even if it is in vague terms, let talk about medical work;

feeling like your head hurts, or you have a tummy ache it's directly a feeling but we take it as fact and we scale it to know how grave it is, if it really really hurts or it's you beind dehydrated as such we act upon it. if not, would you prefer to have invasive procedures to confirm what the other person knows?, or unnecessary mri or ultrasounds. basically that's how knowledge by consensus works, that's how we can measure something we don't see,

it's literally the scientific method. and it is especially true when talking about things that you cannot directly or it's inconvenient to prove directly.

similarly in math whenever you want or need to prove some rules, for example in divisibility the best way to approach it is doing it by induction, on which you don't prove directly as every number may have it's own rules or properties, for example 2 does not divide 2k+1 but it does divide 2k. that's why we do it by induction, so we can prove that in general that does happen if conditions are met.

or we do it via contradiction for example we don't know how many primes they are or if they are finite but we build our proofs based on other properties we already know that, for example lets assume there's the complete set of prime numbers and we wished to multiply every one of them; we could go ahead and do so, and then we add one but now we wished to divide it, if you try to do so you could divide it by every prime but you would be missing one, so you have two option either it's prime or a composite number, which in both cases would point that our complete list of primes is in fact incomplete.

being unable to directly measure something does not mean it's not real or true at that.

but we are going off from your point initially,
the first and second points have their caveat as they are not foolproof; as one can feing ignorance to either ragebait you or to do socratic inference with you, and the second has it's case uses

nonetheless , general intelligence is the ability to get to a solution, pattern recognition and infer next outcomes. i think if you would want to know asking about future circunstance and how and why they think what they think is a better clue,

as they should correctly, postulate their hypothesis, relate data to other data, and propose their solutions

 

[2R0I2P0]

isn't a spectrum or gradient a vector? which directly means it's not scalar i think mathematically it would be a high dimensional vector as well

A spectrum is a scalar quantity. Also

Compressing multiple metrics into a single scalar will be lossy. Unless you have found a way to do it losslessly. in which case you are a genius sitting on an idea worth billions of dollars. Otherwise, you are losing information across multiple categories when you do so.

on your second point yes you are absolutely right, but i think the only way to do so is via probability or statistics the same way you know the covariance and variance in a markowitz portafolio

 

[NoIamHuman]

People who get into a lot of drama and fights tend to be pretty stupid

 

[icnone]

isn't a spectrum or gradient a vector? which directly means it's not scalar i think mathematically it would be a high dimensional vector as well

from my understanding a spectrum is a subset of R, not R^2 or a higher dimensional space

No, a spectrum is usually not a scalar quantity by itself, its a distribution of values. To say that intelligence is a spectrum just means that it varies across a range.

A 1D random variable takes on a scalar quantity, no matter the distribution.

my list is the *least* “lossy”

Bold claim

udging by how fast they are unbiasedly able to process things, learn things, and apply them is the most reasonable option if you do not have years to understand the circumstances of someones mental capacity.

So if your heuristics focus only on problem solving and understanding, then just say you are focusing more on IQ in the original post? That was the entire point of this discussion. We wanted to know your exact definition of intelligence because intelligence is a very broad term.

 

[2R0I2P0]

from my understanding a spectrum is a subset of R, not R^2 or a higher dimensional space

for example; light i think it's represented as a bijective function so it would be two dimensional if it has more measurements or categories it woud be measured in a higher plane i believe. but if you mean to the full "intregated value under the function" we could take it as a scalar quantity but it has to have more than one magnitude to be measured

 

[icnone]

for example; light i think it's represented as a bijective function so it would be two dimensional if it has more measurements or categories it woud be measured in a higher plane i believe. but if you mean to the full "intregated value under the function" we could take it as a scalar quantity but it has to have more than one magnitude to be measured

explain what you mean by bijective
I presume our domain is wavelength, what is the range?

 

[mjölk]

let's exemplify why feelings can and should be quantified even if it is in vague terms, let talk about medical work;

feeling like your head hurts, or you have a tummy ache it's directly a feeling but we take it as fact and we scale it to know how grave it is, if it really really hurts or it's you beind dehydrated as such we act upon it. if not, would you prefer to have invasive procedures to confirm what the other person knows?, or unnecessary mri or ultrasounds. basically that's how knowledge by consensus works, that's how we can measure something we don't see,

it's literally the scientific method. and it is especially true when talking about things that you cannot directly or it's inconvenient to prove directly.

These analogies are a bit misapplied. Feelings can be quantified in practise, but thats different from saying its objectively measurable in the same way temperature is for example. We dont treat pain as an objective fact, it is self reported data from the patient. The pain scale works not because pain is directly measurable like mass is, but because its useful for communication. When you express how much pain you feel, doctors will then triangulate it with other signals such as testing, symptoms, similar cases, etc. Emotional intelligence is more complicated because its not just one internal signal like the patient expressing pain, its a multilayered behavioural pattern; perception, empathy, etc, and each layer requires context which you cant have of a random person.

similarly in math whenever you want or need to prove some rules, for example in divisibility the best way to approach it is doing it by induction, on which you don't prove directly as every number may have it's own rules or properties, for example 2 does not divide 2k+1 but it does divide 2k. that's why we do it by induction, so we can prove that in general that does happen if conditions are met.

or we do it via contradiction for example we don't know how many primes they are or if they are finite but we build our proofs based on other properties we already know that, for example lets assume there's the complete set of prime numbers and we wished to multiply every one of them; we could go ahead and do so, and then we add one but now we wished to divide it, if you try to do so you could divide it by every prime but you would be missing one, so you have two option either it's prime or a composite number, which in both cases would point that our complete list of primes is in fact incomplete.

You are mixing up 2 different kinds of “unknowns”. There is no ambiguity with the system itself when it comes to prime numbers. We dont know all prime numbers in practise because they are infinite, but each statement about a prime number is either true or false according to a defined logical system. The issue is listing them all. In emotional or psychological traits its not the same because the system is unreliable and depends on context. We cant prove it but only estimate it.

that our complete list of primes is in fact incomplete.

being unable to directly measure something does not mean it's not real or true at that.

but we are going off from your point initially,
the first and second points have their caveat as they are not foolproof; as one can feing ignorance to either ragebait you or to do socratic inference with you, and the second has it's case uses

nonetheless , general intelligence is the ability to get to a solution, pattern recognition and infer next outcomes. i think if you would want to know asking about future circunstance and how and why they think what they think is a better clue,

as they should correctly, postulate their hypothesis, relate data to other data, and propose their solutions

I never claimed they were fool proof, and for the third time i think; they are the most fool proof. And certainly more fool proof than judging my knowledge or emotional intelligence.
Intelligence is a cluster of related behaviours that show up very differently depending on the situation and circumstances. There is no such thing as a fool proof way to measure someones intelligence across all categories, and the categories you mentioned fails to take into account that the average person isnt a professional psychologist and most likely just wants a quick measure of someones general capabilities.

Emotional intelligence is not fully observable and extremely dependent on context. You can only measure it with extreme imperfections. Even as a psychologist there would be imperfections in your judgement of a patients emotional intelligence, thats how bad of a measure it is to determine your fellow forum users intelligence. The 3 ways i stated still are better by far.

 

[2R0I2P0]

explain what you mean by bijective
I presume our domain is wavelength, what is the range?

i think i was mistaken light is not bijective, i meant that the function is surjective and injective but thinking about it a little more it does not make that much sense as theres's no negative light, and i don't remember precisely but in class prof described it as a infinite dimensional hilbert space, the tldr that i didn't understand correctly is that theres many values depending on the "view" infrared, x-ray so on as well you could look it as a combination of c m y

 

[Idontknowbrah]

These analogies are a bit misapplied. Feelings can be quantified in practise, but thats different from saying its objectively measurable in the same way temperature is for example. We dont treat pain as an objective fact, it is self reported data from the patient. The pain scale works not because pain is directly measurable like mass is, but because its useful for communication. When you express how much pain you feel, doctors will then triangulate it with other signals such as testing, symptoms, similar cases, etc. Emotional intelligence is more complicated because its not just one internal signal like the patient expressing pain, its a multilayered behavioural pattern; perception, empathy, etc, and each layer requires context which you cant have of a random person.


You are mixing up 2 different kinds of “unknowns”. There is no ambiguity with the system itself when it comes to prime numbers. We dont know all prime numbers in practise because they are infinite, but each statement about a prime number is either true or false according to a defined logical system. The issue is listing them all. In emotional or psychological traits its not the same because the system is unreliable and depends on context. We cant prove it but only estimate it.

I never claimed they were fool proof, and for the third time i think; they are the most fool proof. And certainly more fool proof than judging my knowledge or emotional intelligence.
Intelligence is a cluster of related behaviours that show up very differently depending on the situation and circumstances. There is no such thing as a fool proof way to measure someones intelligence across all categories, and the categories you mentioned fails to take into account that the average person isnt a professional psychologist and most likely just wants a quick measure of someones general capabilities.

Emotional intelligence is not fully observable and extremely dependent on context. You can only measure it with extreme imperfections. Even as a psychologist there would be imperfections in your judgement of a patients emotional intelligence, thats how bad of a measure it is to determine your fellow forum users intelligence. The 3 ways i stated still are better by far.

Holy yap dnr

 

[mjölk]

from my understanding a spectrum is a subset of R, not R^2 or a higher dimensional space

Oh youre one of those people. Trying to come off as intelligent by using terminology that “over-explains” things. You seem much like old user “theRetard”.
When people say “Intelligence is a spectrum” its a conceptual idea about variation and not a mathematical claim about structure, but I think you know that, youre just acting ignorant in order to switch the convo to math.

 

[Idontknowbrah]

Oh youre one of those people. Trying to come off as intelligent by using terminology that “over-explains” things. You seem much like old user “theRetard”.
When people say “Intelligence is a spectrum” its a conceptual idea about variation and not a mathematical claim about structure, but I think you know that, youre just acting ignorant in order to switch the convo to math.

What’s does that mean

 

[icnone]

Oh youre one of those people. Trying to come off as intelligent by using terminology that “over-explains” things. You seem much like old user “theRetard”.
When people say “Intelligence is a spectrum” its a conceptual idea about variation and not a mathematical claim about structure, but I think you know that, youre just acting ignorant in order to switch the convo to math.

negro he brought math up first
also you are a black n****r pls kys

 

[2R0I2P0]

These analogies are a bit misapplied. Feelings can be quantified in practise, but thats different from saying its objectively measurable in the same way temperature is for example. We dont treat pain as an objective fact, it is self reported data from the patient. The pain scale works not because pain is directly measurable like mass is, but because its useful for communication. When you express how much pain you feel, doctors will then triangulate it with other signals such as testing, symptoms, similar cases, etc. Emotional intelligence is more complicated because its not just one internal signal like the patient expressing pain, its a multilayered behavioural pattern; perception, empathy, etc, and each layer requires context which you cant have of a random person.


You are mixing up 2 different kinds of “unknowns”. There is no ambiguity with the system itself when it comes to prime numbers. We dont know all prime numbers in practise because they are infinite, but each statement about a prime number is either true or false according to a defined logical system. The issue is listing them all. In emotional or psychological traits its not the same because the system is unreliable and depends on context. We cant prove it but only estimate it.

I never claimed they were fool proof, and for the third time i think; they are the most fool proof. And certainly more fool proof than judging my knowledge or emotional intelligence.
Intelligence is a cluster of related behaviours that show up very differently depending on the situation and circumstances. There is no such thing as a fool proof way to measure someones intelligence across all categories, and the categories you mentioned fails to take into account that the average person isnt a professional psychologist and most likely just wants a quick measure of someones general capabilities.

Emotional intelligence is not fully observable and extremely dependent on context. You can only measure it with extreme imperfections. Even as a psychologist there would be imperfections in your judgement of a patients emotional intelligence, thats how bad of a measure it is to determine your fellow forum users intelligence. The 3 ways i stated still are better by far.

actually there is, that's why mathematicians still do investigation about our number system it's actually pretty cool. it's called number theory in math.

and yeah you got my point ,feelings are quantified and a useful analysis tool used by doctors especially to not waste time, successfully interpreting what they feel indicates if further testing is needed but normally just by knowing what they feel or how they exhibit pain someone can save others from going into cardiac arrest..

and yeah emotion as in medicine is very complicated but pattern recognition of such kind of behaviors is what is emotional intelligence, is. and then following and recognition of well known behaviour paths for acceptable responses.

and well as well i see you ignored my proposal; as i believe asking questions about future circumstance;

"General intelligence is the ability to get to a solution, pattern recognition and infer next outcomes. i think if you would want to know asking about future circumstance and how and why they think what they think is a better clue,

as they should correctly, postulate their hypothesis, relate data to other data, and propose their solutions"

I thinks thats a best parameter

 

[mjölk]

negro he brought math up first

you were quoting me remember
Brutal point 3 application

also you are a black n****r pls kys

So I guess no arguments then. I hope you get well soon have a good year you too.

 

[2R0I2P0]

Oh youre one of those people. Trying to come off as intelligent by using terminology that “over-explains” things. You seem much like old user “theRetard”.
When people say “Intelligence is a spectrum” its a conceptual idea about variation and not a mathematical claim about structure, but I think you know that, youre just acting ignorant in order to switch the convo to math.

yeah i was the one who brought up math, i like math.

 

[icnone]

So I guess no arguments then. I hope you get well soon have a good year you too.

i fucked your mother

 

[mjölk]

actually there is, that's why mathematicians still do investigation about our number system it's actually pretty cool. it's called number theory in math

Yes ofc and that great, but this is still a defined system unlike emotional intelligence. In math, theory doesnt mean guessing. You still have strict logical rules. You still have definitions, methods, rules and results. Emotional intelligence does too to some extent, but the difference is how fixed and agreed upon they are. For example in math we have exact definitions like “integer” or “prime”. But in psychology “empathy” and “social awareness” is defined differently by different studies, psychologists and even cultures.

and yeah you got my point ,feelings are quantified and a useful analysis tool used by doctors especially to not waste time, successfully interpreting what they feel indicates if further testing is needed but normally just by knowing what they feel or how they exhibit pain someone can save others from going into cardiac arrest..

I dont disagree that feelings are useful in practise, but its a bit overstated. You gotta agree that we cant use feelings as a definitive way of diagnosing a person. Chest pain for example can mean anxiety, heart attack, muscle strain etc. You would only know which one it is with different sources of information.

and well as well i see you ignored my proposal; as i believe asking questions about future circumstance;

"General intelligence is the ability to get to a solution, pattern recognition and infer next outcomes. i think if you would want to know asking about future circumstance and how and why they think what they think is a better clue,

as they should correctly, postulate their hypothesis, relate data to other data, and propose their solutions"

I thinks thats a best parameter

I didnt ignore it, i explained point 1.

1. Lets say hypothetically you are right, how do you figure youre gonna measure my ability to get to a solution, my pattern recognition and ability to infer next outcomes in an accurate way just by asking them and observing? Even as a psychologist this would be a hard task especially over the internet and this thread certainly wasnt directed to any professional psychologists.

2. Intelligence also includes predictive abilities such as learning speed, finding underlying structure instead of just predicting outcome, memory, applying learned knowledge to other topics. By just asking someone questions over the internet multiple unreliable results could be produced. For example: the person may have high or low confidence, may have been in your “test situation” before and memorised patterns to the correct solution, they may have good social intuition, etc.

and yeah emotion as in medicine is very complicated but pattern recognition of such kind of behaviors is what is emotional intelligence, is. and then following and recognition of well known behaviour paths for acceptable responses.

Its not just fixed paths tho. People dont follow consistent emotional rules like in math and when diagnosing people with precision. Every context like childhood, interests, current state of being, experience, etc, changes things and cultural differences play a part.

 

[mjölk]

yeah i was the one who brought up math, i like math.

No problem, I dont think you did it in a useless way. There was definitely a purpose for it in your case.

 

[2R0I2P0]

I didnt ignore it, i explained point 1.

1. Lets say hypothetically you are right, how do you figure youre gonna measure my ability to get to a solution, my pattern recognition and ability to infer next outcomes in an accurate way just by asking them and observing? Even as a psychologist this would be a hard task especially over the internet and this thread certainly wasnt directed to any professional psychologists.

2. Intelligence also includes predictive abilities such as learning speed, finding underlying structure instead of just predicting outcome, memory, applying learned knowledge to other topics. By just asking someone questions over the internet multiple unreliable results could be produced. For example: the person may have high or low confidence, may have been in your “test situation” before and memorised patterns to the correct solution, they may have good social intuition, etc..

oh well, i would give a question with an answer i already thought out;

with general guidelines;
the first one would be coherence that everything he says pans out with what's he is building towards to,
secondly it would be inventiveness, if didn't thought of that i would say that would be inventive (reminder it's your own scale not a test)
thirdly, would include follow up questions given the hypothethical change the scenario to see if he can think on his feet,

ideally that would be done in person;

cause that's the way more naturally could be checked, someone using or paraphrasing others or common knowledge is not necessarily intelligent but is more of a question if he is cultured, and that usually is better than just inteligent.

 

[mjölk]

common knowledge is not necessarily intelligent but is more of a question if he is cultured, and that usually is better than just inteligent.

so you just dont care if hes smart and just want to know his interests ?

 

[2R0I2P0]

so you just dont care if hes smart and just want to know his interests ?

not everyone can be as smart as you, so you just have to settle

 

[mjölk]

not everyone can be as smart as you, so you just have to settle

Thats true, but I get easily annoyed at people when they dont do things as efficiently as me and i gotta work on that.

 

[icnone]

Thats true, but I get easily annoyed at people when they dont do things as efficiently as me and i gotta work on that.

that's cuz most people are retarded

 

[scotfield]

I see many people on here who judge other peoples intelligence by the amount of relevant knowledge they have, or even the amount if agreeable opinions.

I wont even speak about judging based on opinions, but for knowledge, any stupid person can type a google search or ask chat gpt about the current topic. Any stupid person can do their research or have an interest in the topic. You will never know who took 1 hour to learn something, and who took 1 week to learn the same thing.


I can tell when someone is less intelligent by:

1. Their ability to understand simple concepts when explained to them
When it comes to logic. They dont need to agree with you neither does it need to be part of a debate, but stupid people will often respond to your statement with something that requires you to repeat your statement instead of refuting you, simply because they dont understand the contradiction or distinction.

2. How enthusiastic they are about certain concepts
For example, if a stupid person learns a new fact or topic, they will often exaggerate the importance of that fact or the complexity of the topic. The fact is most likely a fun fact with very little importance in the equation, but since they just wanna talk about their newly learnt fact and seem smart, they will speak about it as if it contributes more to the product than it actually does. If it is a topic, it could be something that we all couldve understood by a 2 sentence explanation, but that they see the need to write an essay about.

3. Their ability to follow in a conversation
When talking to stupid people, you will often have to keep going back in the conversation after realising they didnt understand something. The conversation first moves at a normal phase because you keep moving on to the next sub-topic, but eventually you will get stuck and have to look back in the convo to re-explain something that they have already responded to and seemingly understood, because they contradicted that explanation 10 messages later. Then the going back and fourth will confuse them even further and the conversation will be impossible to conclude.

@arya @PingPong @necrotic @Newday

Shit thread , too much yap

 

[mjölk]

Shit thread , too much yap

bro doesnt even care to be intelligent i respect it

 

[2R0I2P0]

Thats true, but I get easily annoyed at people when they dont do things as efficiently as me and i gotta work on that.

yeah no I get it, growing up autistic doesn't do any favours

try DBT therapy it helped me a lot when I was little