You guys do know that there are actually good ways to judge intelligence?
Well at least better than: The sound of someone’s voice; whether they’ve read Dostoyevsky; whether they use big words; the type of material they’ve read; where their interests lie and, of course, the way their eyes look.
These might be a good way to judge ignorance (except the eyes and voice thing, which is good for nothing), but ignorance does not necessarily mean a lack of intelligence. A person could memorize every word in the dictionary and still not be able to comprehend the significance of 26 students dropping his class by the end of the semester. Yes I’m talking to you, professor of that class Lakai had to take a while ago. The professor had a good vocabulary but could not for the life of him make anyone in his class understand the concepts that he taught.
Here are some ways I judge intelligence:
Curiosity. A curious person by nature looks into more things than someone who isn’t curious.
Determination. This is my best measure for whether or not someone will successfully understand all the concepts in whatever he or she is determined at achieving. If I know someone who is really determined at becoming a math professor, that is the person I would most likely trust with any of my math questions. If they are just starting out, I might have to wait a while.
Experience. Experience is always the best teacher.
How fast they learn something. This is the heart of intelligence.
How well they understand the beliefs they have. I’ll usually ask people why they hold a certain opinion even when I know why that certain opinion is favorable. If they have no clue, and then don’t question their own beliefs, chances are they aren’t so smart. This one is a little flaky because sometimes people won’t admit they’re questioning themselves in public. I use it with a grain of salt.
In the type of consulting I do, if someone lacks mental horsepower it becomes evident very quickly:
-Inability to grasp business or technical concepts
-Unable to problem solve or fill in information gaps
-Requires constant handholding
-Need to have instructions repeated over and over
Now some of this might be due to inexperience or lacking specific technical knowledge. But rapidly learning that knowledge on the fly is part of the job too.
I went through a somewhat advanced academic program in High School (IB, for those of you who care) which meant that while I had a very thorough grounding in organic chemistry, we had no time for classes like Art, Phys Ed, or more importantly, SEX ED. The complete extent of my education on the matter of the birds and bees was composed of the viewing of a single episode of Ally Mcbeal in class, with the concluding comment “So that’s how it works kids.”. From this I managed to gather that the only way of ever getting any was to become a lawyer, wear sharp suits and, as you so eloquently put it, “talk fluent nonsense”. I’ve since gotten the suites and am working on the other two. I’ve recently started to watch it again, and nothing else in that show made a lick of sense to me, but it is now permanently wired into my brain that Lawyers == Impossibly beautiful gods/goddesses of the pillow arts.
I hope that make sense, in a convoluted sort of way.
Intelligence also entails the ability to do creative, often groundbreaking, things with newly acquired information.
Quick studies abound. The truly brilliant person can manipulate common knowledge in dazzling ways. Such a proposition may entail 30 years of preparatory learning.
+3 points if the person gets me to think about something in a different way
-1 point if the person says something that is not true, hoping that I will believe it, generally indicates they are used to thinking everyone will believe their BS.
I change my mind about people a lot, don’t know if that is good or bad.
I usually base that sort of assessment on what sorts of questions a person asks.
There’s a difference between stupidity and ignorance - if a person is uninformed about a particular topic, but asks well thought out questions about it, I generally figure that they’re pretty smart.
On the other hand, when I meet someone who doesn’t know about a particular topic and they dismiss it out of hand, refusing to ask ANY questions, I always assume that they aren’t super bright.
Finally - lay off of FlyingRamenMonster. He’s just trying to hide the fact that he’s an avid Cosmo reader…
When I first meet someone, I usually judge their intelligence by how well they listen. A person who listens intently, looks you in the eye, seems to understand what you say, doesn’t interrupt and start talking about themself, and asks intelligent follow up questions will strike me as intelligent – more intelligent than a person who starts giving you their resume the moment you meet them, and who won’t shut up about themself. I don’t think this is just an ego-stroking thing, either – a person I observe listening that way when speaking to another person will still strike me as intelligent. Being a good, attentive listener incorporates patience, thoughtfulness, curiosity, and the ability to quickly assimilate new information – all part of being generally intelligent.
You can be a good listener even when you’re the one doing the talking. You listen carefully to questions addressed to you; you’re attuned to other people’s desires to shift the conversation; you can read your surroundings and address your audience appropriately.
I find this a useful measure, because when you first meet someone you usually won’t have much of a chance to find out what they read, how knowledgable they are about current events, how quickly they solve problems, etc. You can get all that information later on and fine tune your judgment as needed, but the quality of a person’s listening skills are a good first-impression measure.
I haven’t yet honed my Rapid Assessment of Intelligence Test. I used to think vocabulary mattered, but I’ve come to understand that these this metric is subject to my own biases. For instance, I used to be impressed when people would casually drop jargon, lingo, subcultural slang, or archaic terminology when in mixed or informal company. Now, I think it’s a major turn-off, a sign that the speaker isn’t very sophisticated or thoughtful.
Great conversationalists generally ping on my smartdar. I’m not talking about ramblers or people whose lips are constantly flapping. I’m talking about people who can keep the conversation lively and stimulating and can talk about a variety of topics in depth. I’m introverted, with a big tendency towards shyness, but I’ve come to the conclusion that a lot of my quiet bretheren can come across as not-so-bright sometimes. People who speak up in class or in the conference room always seem smarter than average to me.
Along those lines, people who can argue well also seem smart. People who cower from debates or heated discussions come across as weak-minded, like they’ve never seriously thought about the things they believe in.
Any form of creativity is also a big sign of intelligence. Simply having an idea–even if it’s kind of wacky–and being brave enough to voice it is enough for me to think you’re smart.
Define “cower.” I like to think I’m reasonably intelligent, but in real life I generally avoid heated discussions, especially about religion, because I find them unpleasant. One of my sisters opines that I need to return to the Bible-thumping, fag-whumping church of our youth, and she’d probably say I “cower” because I refuse to tell her why. It’s not that I shy away from hard thought; it’s that I’ve no interest in hearing her yell about the evils of white people.
I’ll agree with those who have mentioned “curiosity” or some variation on it. However, I’ll offer a slightly different angle on judging whether or not the curiosity is attached to a legitimate intelligence:
A major contributor in my evaluation of somebody is the kind of questions they ask.
This encompasses a number of items already mentioned. For example, reading books; someone who has questions will most likely read more than someone who feels they already have the answers. Another example: listening. Intelligence to me is not passive; it’s restless. I cannot tell if someone who listens silently is actually listening; true listening is given away by the questions asked by the listener to guide the conversation into areas of interest. Also, someone who talks a lot but asks few or no questions is somebody who thinks nobody else has anything to offer that he doesn’t already know about, which is in my experience what happens when self-interest has trumped curiosity.
In this light, one’s choice of reading material is largely irrelevant; it’s how one relates to the reading material, and the questions one is stimulated to ask, that is the determining factor. So the “women’s magazine” mini-hijack going on, to me, is a debate without substance; the simple fact that one reads such a magazine is not what’s important. If somebody looks at the magazine and says to oneself, “Oh, I wonder if that Jennifer Aniston is ever going to be happy; oh, look, I never heard about cellulite of the uvula before, I wonder if my throat is fat,” the lack of real curiosity, and therefore intelligence, is given away by the questions being asked. But if one looks at the same magazine and says, “Mmm, I wonder if this advertisement for diet Jell-O being placed directly opposite this article about jiggly thighs is really a coincidence,” that to me is a good question, and an indication of a functioning mind.
That’s my top criterion. Pay attention to the questions the other person is asking and you’ll get an excellent sense of what’s going on in his or her head.
I honestly can’t tell most of the time, especially if I don’t know somebody well, and often even if I do. I think most people who seem dumb the way most people think of “dumb” just aren’t educated, cultured or whatever —as in, the way you or I might define educated, cultured, or whatever— which seems to be how many of us judge intelligence.
I know that people have different IQs, but without getting into a big debate about it, *I * think that’s maybe not as solid a measure as we all may think. Anyhow, I’m not so sure that too many people are actually “dumber” than others so much as lacking an education, set of mores or values, or display of common sense or independence in common with the person judging them.
As so many have stated, intelligence can be measured in many ways. My father-in-law never went beyond high school yet became a successful businessman. He has read extensively about various subjects and can discuss history and world politics. He has literally traveled pole to pole and abhors the touristy trips, preferring to spend time in the out-of-the-way towns and talk with the locals in a pub.
Unfortunately, he is slightly more racist than Archie Bunker, Adolf Hitler and Pat Buchanan put together. He can accurately provide facts, figures and dates about conflicts in the Middle East but then starts talking about solving the problems by just “nuking the ragheads and hebes and taking the oil”! He can come across as quite knowledgeable on social issues, such as gay rights and welfare, but then ruins it by talking about putting all fags on an island and shipping blacks back to Africa!
I also have a cousin with a PhD in Electrical Engineering who can talk forever about the nano-machines he is working on in the lab. Yet he doesn’t have a clue about what is currently happening outside of his University.
Give me someone who:
• Is curious about information and events outside of their immediate environment (e.g., home, state, country, religion, gender, etc.).
• Has the ability to build off the information with imaginative inquiries.
• Is willing to listen to another person’s viewpoint without immediately dismissing it.
• Can state their opinions and views clearly and without condescension.
