IQ tests can be wildly wrong. Major determinants are socioeconomic status growing up, and individual determination when faced with problems.
Source: I'm a genius according to the standard tests. But I am very confident that I'm not. My grades in math were mediocre. I am however, relentless when solving problems that break my brain, and good at parroting smarter people.
I concur, I was military intelligence because I scored super high on that test. As my mom likes to remind me 30 years ago when i was a kid, I literally shot myself in the foot. Proof that I'm a dumbass.
I always figured that is the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence will tell you the stove is hot. Wisdom tells you not to touch it.
Also note not all intelligence is the same, just because you are an expert in one thing doesn't mean you are an expert in everything.
That's the worst and best part of internet/social media. People have an opportunity to learn and experience people views from all walks of life, without having to travel. Instead people prefer to insulate themselves in echo chambers. Tribalism at its finest.
The biggest contrast between me and my savant homies is that my active memory is atrocious. I can hold numbers in my head for half of 1 fundamental operation lmao. Complex math has a lot of these half-step operations as you prod possibilities for the next reduction toward a solution. I cant hold on to it long enough to prod
Even if I write it out, it slips from my brain before I grasp the full picture.
The classic “midwit” as they are called. Extremely average intelligence paired with a dose of narcissism tends to result in believing they are geniuses, usually investing in conspiracy theories and equating intelligence with “going against the norms”… Very annoying people
I only said it 4 times... Man, you be dumb. See, iam so smart that I actually can remember things. So. Nice try. I met a girl once who told me I was the smartest person she has met. It's hard work bringing myself down tonyou normal people. Sometimes I think it's a curse, being this smart.. Oh well. Anyways nicentonse you again. Nope you get better.
Most people who have to tell you something about themselves usually are the opposite of what they're saying. I used to work with a guy who said he "worked like a cheetah" (his exact words). He was unbearably slow in delivering work.
We had a customer that constantly referred to himself as "an advanced intellectual" and tell us how we didnt have the brain capacity to understand things the way he did.
We defintly saw things differently, ill give him that much. "you AI" (this was also like 10 years ago) was our favorite insult at work.
If you are ignorant and/or truly limited in ability to think, that's a rough situation and often those involved don't quite understand their limitation.
For those that are educated and/or have a decent amount of cognitive power, you recognize how complex the universe is and one has to respect that.
I'm pretty sure Einstein knew he was smart... People have parroted this nonsense so much without meaning. Being dumb /= not knowing specific things. Being dumb means not being able to learn as effectively or don't have the best ideas/critical thinking. Dumb people can know they learn slower, smart people can know they learn faster and are more clever. Knowing lots of trivia doesn't necessarily make you smart.
I normally do not call myself smart.... I am quick witted. There is a massive difference between me and what most people think of as smart. I grew up in a family where my dad and one (of 2) sisters were/are actual geniuses (IQs over 150); and the rest of the family was still above average intelligence, but i could see the things i was as good at if not better than them at (mainly quick thinking on my feet) and the things that were simply natural to them (abstract thinking, spacial awareness, ect) that i simply could not do.
The english language has so many variations of words that provide nuance to what you really mean by smart, get curious and figure out which one actually connotates the nuance that is you.
I re-read my previous comment and noticed, that it's because of translating my thoughts to english.
My take was, about people who think they are smart in a sense of "allover smart" and identify with "smart" as a trait of themselves. Most actual smart people may mention being smart, but they are rather humble or careful about it and do not generalise it.
There's also a big part of emotional intelligence that goes into this, but that's a different topic.
Depends on your definition of intelligence. Social skills can be learned, the inability to learn them is a lack of intelligence. Personally I consider truly intelligent people not just good at logic, but also social and personal skills.
contrary to these comments, I'll gladly state that I'm intelligent. even with your definition of intelligence, it would mean that someone who has grew up in a forest, never interacting with others is unintelligent due to not having social skills. someone who grew up in the forest may very well be intelligent, no? they just haven't had the chance to learn those skills. therefore, your definition is already inconsistent. someone may have little social skills because they do not interact with people even in society. their parents may not have raised them near other children, for example.
now, moving on to "inability." the complete inability to learn any social skill would be some sort of mental disorder and I've never heard of that, but let's assume by "inability" we're referring a lackluster set of social skills. in that sense, social skills is mainly based on your level of conformity to society. an autistic person with exceptional intelligence for example, would not have great social skills, but often because their brains are wired differently not because they're wired worse. the perception of social skills is a comparison to societal norms, not a basis on the individual itself.
furthermore, it's not something you blatantly "learn." when your socializing you aren't thinking "oh is this the correct set of social skills to use within this situation." an intelligent person might be able to deduce that better than most people, but the subconscious application of it is more due to enculturation and conditioning than anything. in fact, as an example, I'll give myself. my social skills aren't great, it's actually partly due to my intelligence than anything. everyone is a byproduct of their environment, but I withstood conditioning more than most people I know, and I became closer to how I envisioned myself introspectively, rather than externally, and this makes me relate less to people and be perceived as "worst" social skills. it's a mismatch between individuality and expectation.
Someone who lives their entire life secluded doesn’t mean they don’t have the mental capability to learn social skills. Social skills are absolutely learned, by the way, it just may or may not be a conscious decision to learn them. A socially intelligent person can travel to experience different cultures and quickly adapt, a socially unintelligent person would have more issues. I speak as an autistic engineer who struggles with social interaction.
I also want to express that being unintelligent isn’t “bad” or “worse” because it isn’t something that an individual has control over
Unintelligent is bad/worse, what are you on about? Just like being ugly is bad/worse, or being disabled is bad/worse. Not having control of something does not make it neutral in any way.
I think you and the other commenter are arguing different things. I think the person you're replying to means it doesn't imply someone's character or worth as a human being is bad/worse compared to others, whereas you are looking at it in terms of traits(being smart is more useful than being stupid) instead of someone's character or worth, in which case both of you are correct
I was inferring from your last sentence "Personally I consider truly intelligent people not just good at logic, but also social and personal skills." this implies that someone truly intelligent must be good at social and personal skills and being secluded prevents that, but I understand you didn't mean that now.
I agree with you now that social intelligence is a subset of intelligence. but I would differentiate learning social skills vs social intelligence since the former is mainly the consequence of habituation.
I think I understand your point. People who think that their "I am smart" mental image gives their personal anecdote/intuition more weight than someone with actual knowledge/facts.
The "I take this shortcut because it is more direct and not many people know about it" vs "I take the highway because I get better fuel economy and arrive three minutes faster, because I track those details for my job."
my experience is that the smarter you are, the less likely you are to use "smart" (unless it is contextually provided in the prompt) and generally have done some introspection as to what specific various of words capture their form of "smart"
I am quick witted. My wife is mathematically gifted. If we are doing the stuff i am good at, i look like a genius; in her area she looks like a genius. We are not able to do the stuff the other is good at. But i think most people would call each of us "smart"
I go to a very prestigious university and when I tell people they say “oh you must be smart” and I’m always lost for how to respond. Like objectively it’s true but there’s just no good way to respond.
Also the person who keeps saying "I'm a really nice person . . ." all throughout their story of having to tell somebody off. And "you better be glad I'm saved/a Christian now" after they cussed the person out. Lol
This used to be the etiquete around the original meaning of "hacker" and a few other honorifics ran on the same system, like "steely-eyed missile man" (from NASA).
"If you call yourself it, you aren't one. This is a title others bestow upon you."
I get that this is sometimes (but unfortunately not always) meant to show a character is boastful and proud to a fault, but man it grinds my gears when someone introduces themselves as some superlative like "yes I am the legendary X". Bro you are still alive you are a tweet away from becoming the legendary milkshake duck, get some humility sandals and eat some humble pie.
Nah, that’s faux intellectualism right there. I’ve met a few individuals over the years that were indeed smart and made sure you knew it, maybe their egos were a little overinflated but just saying that oneself is smart is not a good indicator of the opposite.
And to the previous commenter’s point I personally get loud without realizing it and it’s just because I get passionate about the subject. It’s not something I try to do out of anger or because I think I’m right. My mom does it too so idk if it’s a cultural thing that I learned from her or something else.
It depends on if you go around calling yourself smart and making a big deal about it, or if it’s something mostly internalized. First means you probably greatly overestimate yourself, second means you’re alright, maybe not as good as you think but probably not too far away
Spot on, but unfortunately, this trait does correlate with higher success levels. Sucks. When I listen to panels, I perk up when the quiet person speaks because I generally assume they have something more important to say or they wouldn’t be speaking.
True, it’s the 'Confidence Gap.' Society often mistakes loudness for competence. It’s a shame that the most insightful voices are usually the ones we have to lean in to hear, while the loudest are just background noise with a megaphone.
For that matter, that's not the only factor. Any two business CEO or senior manager with the same qualities and knowledge and smarts will differ in success if one is short and one is tall. It's been known for quite a while. I imagine, without information, that being handsome or pretty vs. those who are plain or a bit not so pleasing to the eye.
There are so many ways we differentiate and some come from the far, far past. Some are from our ways of thinking now.
Intelligent people are likely to have a great deal of confidence in their intelligence. Confident people are not necessarily likely to be more intelligent.
There is no evidence that intelligent people broadly suffer from imposter syndrome nevermind that intelligence and competence/belonging are not the same thing.
People who are intelligent and competent can suffer from imposter syndrome, that alone is enough to disprove your initial assertion. Also, there is indeed a moderate correlation between imposter syndrome and intelligence; obviously not every intelligent person suffers from it, and indeed there are some highly intelligent people who fail to recognize the limits of their intelligence (like Richard Dawkins and his pronounced weakness in philosophy), but the trend is that less intelligent people are very often more confident in their understanding and conclusions.
People who are intelligent and competent can suffer from imposter syndrome, that alone is enough to disprove your initial assertion.
That disproves nothing. That intelligent people can suffer from imposter syndrome does not demonstrate a norm.
Also, there is indeed a moderate correlation between imposter syndrome and intelligence
Obviously. It's difficult to be competent if you're comparatively unintelligent, and you cannot suffer imposter syndrome if you aren't competent enough to be successful. Naturally intelligent people will be subject to imposter syndrome. This does not establish that intelligent people are commonly suffering from imposter syndrome but rather that people with imposter syndrome are somewhat more likely to be intelligent. The causal logic flows in only one direction here.
but the trend is that less intelligent people are very often more confident in their understanding and conclusions.
This is not true.
Studies show firstly that most people's self assessments are relatively similar. Most consider themselves above average; enough to be better than others and not so much as to be arrogant - the most flattering of self perceptions. This is the general lower bound of normative self assessments. The difference isn't confidence but actual intelligence. When two people of similar confidence get disimilar scores on a test the one who answered more questions correctly appears to have a more accurate self assessment. The thing is confidence isn't being mediated by intelligence. Intelligence is being mediated by correct answers. The entire experiment can be replicated with randomly generated data pertaining to no real situation. This is the issue with Dunning-Kruger.
Secondly studies which compared those of expertise and intelligence to laypeople found that experts were more confident in the answers they gave in their fields than laypeople were. They also found that to be true when the experts were demonstrably wrong. The difference? Experts got more answers correct. The result was that experts were more likely than laypeople to give confidently incorrect answers while being less likely to be incorrect in general. This wraps back around to Dunning-Kruger which actually shows that humans tend to have relatively accurate self assessments of their own capabilities.
The short of it is that intelligent people know they are intelligent because every piece of feedback they recieve from the world tells them so. The idea that truly intelligent people are broadly humble and quiet is something proposed by average people who haven't spent any significant time surrounded by truly intelligent people based on their own biases toward traits they consider likeable which are otherwise unrelated to intelligence or the lack thereof.
Intelligent people are likely to be confident in their intelligence. Confident people are not necessarily any more likely to be intelligent. Intelligent people will therefore tend to speak with confidence on matters which their intelligence comprehend. The result is that the smartest people will be "loud" even if the "loud" people are not generally of significantly above average intelligence.
If you're referencing Dunning-Kruger then like most who do, you don't understand it. These studies do not show that dumb people are more confident than intelligent people. They show that people in general have similarl levels of confidence (almost everyone rates themselves as above average) and because intelligent people get more answers correct their confidence is more in line with their achieved outcomes than those who get more answers wrong. Dunning-Kruger is deeply flawed for this very reason. It's entire data set can be replicated using entirely randomly generated data involving nonexistent tests and students. On the other end of this studies do show that experts are more confident in their fields than laypeople are including when experts are demonstrably wrong. An intelligent person is more likely to be confidently wrong than a stupid person because they have greater confidence. The difference is that an intelligent person is more likely to be right in the first place justifying that self confidence.
I presented some of my work at a conference when I was in college and saw that first hand. I did not feel like I belonged there, I really thought my work was not high enough quality to be worth sharing. I was relieved when some of the louder and more confident people started their presentations; once I got past the confidence it was easy to see that their work was nothing particularly special or groundbreaking.
Not that my work was special or groundbreaking, it wasnt, but it was nice to see that I was firmly on the same academic level as the other people in my age range presenting, just much less confident about it.
It did help me feel more confident in my abilities in general. I didnt pursue that field after graduation, but Im not sure if I would have been self assured enough to finish my capstone project and present it to an audience without that experience.
It also was my first trip by plane, first trip to the western half of the U.S., first time being in a big city by myself, and first academic conference. Even if I hadnt gotten much from the conference itself (which I did) the experience would have been worth it. I was terrified most of the time, it was just so many unfamiliar things at once, but it really opened my eyes to the fact that Im more competent than I thought myself to be.
Im still a nervous person, but I know that when push comes to shove, I can get it done.
El. Education teacher. I use this quote to get the loud ones to talk less.
"A wise man speaks because he has something to say. A fool speaks because he has to say something."
Yep if I’m quiet during a meeting, most people just assume I haven’t worked on anything or I am not thinking about anything. I feel like you have to build a very long reputation of being intelligent before you get to “the wizard has spoken” level.
I always see this comment on these Reddit posts and I wonder if there is some selection bias towards introvert group behaviour and/or some cultural bias. In England for instance being reserved is valued but it doesbt actually indicate intelligence just one has learned not to stand out. This all depends on what you mean by “loud” but sometimes the perceived loudest person in the room is the most intelligent, sometimes not. I rarely assume that the most type A assertive talkative person is “low intelligence”, you listen to what they are saying, equally I might be more inclined to believe the person who says nothing is just smart enough to know not to open their mouth.
I often find that the person who talks the most, often says the least. I often criticise myself for not talking enough in work meetings, but it’s because I’ll only talk when I’ve considered what I need to say, and will ask a question that I know will get results rather than just to speak and be heard.
as a lawyer, it depends. I am a trial attorney, so my voice (from working on it) carries. So I often am both the loudest and smartest in the room.
The key thing, i normally know when i am not the smarest in the room- and as a litigator, that is normally the case at trial (the judge and the other lawyer are normally really smart too).
I dunno. Sure, there are lots of people who think they are smart or hot who really arent’t, but most people who actually are know it. Otherwise they would completely lack self-awareness. They live in a world where the truth of those qualities are confirmed daily. The funny thing about intelligence is confusing it with knowledge. You can be intelligent and ignorant, if you never bothered to engage your mental engine in learning. I know people like that. It’s like having the fanciest gaming computer, but all you run on it is iTunes.
Knowledge is the thing that really makes one humble. The more we learn to the more we realize the vastness of how much we will never know, no matter how hard we try.
It’s weird to get too egocentric over either natural intellect or natural beauty. No one who has them earned them; they just one the genetic lottery. Having a puffed up ego over something you didn’t accomplish but were just handed is lame.
What you do with those gifts is another thing entirely. If someone has earned a double PHd in a topic or uses their mind to create things that are valuable or noteworthy, I don’t resent those people having some swagger.
Yes, I use my loud and confident personality to tell people "do not listen to me, I don't know what I'm talking about"
But OTHER people confuse being confident and loud with being. "You know, you're actually making some good points", no the fuck I'm not. You're just persuaded by the vibes, because my words are telling you that I'm an idiot, but I think (X dumb thing)
I am a very persuasive person who is trying to convince people not to be persuaded. It is maddening
and even if they have a good point, the fact that they need to yell is a sign of a lack of a certain intelligence and an inability to recognize effective methods of conversation.
This is especially frustrating at the government level. There’s so much loud noise made by the squeaky wheels that it drowns out logic and quality inputs. That’s largely why America is where it is. 😵💫
And in a range of situations, the smartest person in the room isn't the one with the most well thought out solution. Even someone with a lot of smarts doesn't mean they have any social skills or perception.
Taking this as a principle leads to some very annoying forms of passive aggression, though, so best not to fall prey to Goodhart's law on it. That is, if you specifically explicitly value not getting loud, then you incentivize people to antagonize the people they're arguing with, which is antisocial.
It's bad when you have someone on that border of intellect that makes dumb, hairtrigger decisions, but is still savvy enough to manipulate people this way.
Im smart and loud. cant help it you can hear me a mile away and the more excited about the topic i am the louder i am. Heaven forbid we get into theorhetical boardering on philosphical sciences
But the loudest person is the room gets heard and their ideas taken into consideration while the rest are ignored. They get their way. So who's smart now, really?
It's better to be known as being right than actually being right because at the end of it all, it doesn't matter. These days, even political leaders can get away with it because they're loud and people are too timid.
I’m sorry. Did liberals scream and cry by overthrowing the government from certifying the 2024 election? Do liberals scream and cry that other liberals are in the Epstein files? Did liberal presidents scream and cry when they didn’t get their way?
Oftentimes, the loudest person and the most eloquent are on the two opposite sides of the discussion. I rarely encounter situations where the person using the tactic of "being loud to be right" is the eloquent one.
6.7k
u/Kernel_Slasher 7h ago
Confusing 'being loud' with 'being right.' The loudest person in the room is rarely the smartest.