How can you tell if someone is intelligent or just merely affected?Out of curiosity, how do I tell if I am, too?
>>32018100affected by what
>>32018100Ask (even if only in your mind) what intelligent things they have done.
>>32018100Understand the difference between inteligence and education. The one is an innate ability, the other just the accumulation of facts. Phonies toss around facts as if they were proof of intelligence; intelligent people say and do intelligent things
>>32018344Gonna go with this. But what are intelligent things? They're out of the ordinary, they might be due to common sense or being well-versed in certain subjects. An intelligent person might offer insights you haven't considered, explain something complicated in a way you can understand, or even just behave in a way that hints at how well they handle and conduct themselves.
Genuine intelligence is really easy to spot because it's so rare. I knew a guy who could finish your sentences before you could finishing thinking them up. He must've had like a top 99.9999% percentile verbal IQ
>>32018100I like to think that people who know a lot but don't understand are taught information or glean it for some use but do not use it in the same sense or context we would think to. In reality a lot of people are good at certain things, and bad at others. Some people just know a lot more and this can be nature (passion) or nurture (tutoring/good school). Many factors play a role in sustaining learning behaviors, but it is just as important to use these ideas or even go out of your way to find things you are interested in. It is not a quick or easy process, it involves lots of questioning and even some work on yourself. Then if you work hard you can go out and do "smart" (hard) things. Many people still fail to conceptualize this. You can argue that if you were super smart you could do hard stuff fast, but you have to do a bunch of hard stuff slow first to gain experience. Gaming the knowledge system for your own ends and making your learning process efficient for your own goals might be the closest answer for you here.As for your question more deeply, you can look at the material success of your peers within your/your parents tax bracket. look at some quantitative data. Also if you want a book on gaining a better knowledge system you should try The Manual by Rod Bremer: a guide to the Ultimate Study Method. I pirated it off of libgen a few years ago.
>>32018100i think intelligence is calculated by the speed, power, and frequency of your own original ideas. also if you have any speech impediment you cannot be intelligent by default like if you have any dumb accent. this proves you don't even have the linguistic ability to think in your head because you are almost illiterate.
>>32018733>linguistic ability to think in your headWhat kind of retard thinks in words? That's slow af
>>32018687>intelligence = material successNo. Intelligent people are no less influenced by their upbringing and habits than others, their brains just work better. >>32018733>speech impediment = dumbNo. This can be due to dyslexia, anxiety, upbringing, because speaking is not inherently tied with thinking. Also your emphasis is on verbal IQ which is not the entirety of intelligence at all.
>>32018737oh is that why picture books are for children and not giant nonfiction essays? that npc apple image meme is just that a meme
>>32018739the nigga asked for a way to tell if someone is smart that's one way you can do it. obviously if someone speaks retarded they must think retarded. if you can't produce words even if you spell or pronounce them wrong how can you even have any idea at all if you cannot produce words in your brain. you have to have words to define anything . it has to be true that people that sound retarded are in fact retarded
>>32018744>obviously if someone speaks retarded they must think retarded.Wrong. Your entire post is reasoning by association, not logic.
>>32018744you worded it awkwardly but there's something to your point. people with a poor vocabulary often have a low IQ. actually, the vocab subtest on genuine IQ tests is so g-saturated that it's often used as a placeholder for general IQ ( unless some mental ilness is present that depresses linguistic ability, for example some autists have an incredible spatial aptitude despite their mediocre verbal skills)this is mostly because words are the most essential symbols we use. intelligent people ( even those who don't read a lot) retain knowledge of those symbols better, can see the nuances in connotation and deduce unknown words by reducing them to their roots
>>32018739>No. Intelligent people are no less influenced by their upbringing and habits than others, their brains just work better. you saying "their brains just work better", well on what? oxygen efficiency? you can argue that maybe there are some material conditions our brain might theoretically have to give us an advantage, but we are all human and share 99% of our DNA. Also, from birth your body is shaped by your material conditions, so really any innate advantage actually comes from your upbringing if not directly from your parents.
>>32018100>how do I tell if I am, too?bad news, if you were intelligent you would know>How can you tell if someone is intelligentbad news 2: if you were intelligent you wouldnt have any trouble to recognize real intelligence in someone elseim not trying to be an arrogrant faggot but this is the naked universal truth
>>32018774intelligence is mostly innate. still, studies show that upbringing does help to develop one's intelligence to its maximal potential
>>32018772the point they are making is you need proficiency/fluency in language to be considered adept at anything. your ideas are bottlenecked by your expression? but that is not true, look at Stephen hawking. really, you are bottlenecked by your perception and retention.>>32018793if you think intelligence is innate you are a complete moron and don't understand how intelligence works at all. >>32018778this guy too. you can never just "know" unless you have magic that allows you to know everything they know by hearing one sentence out of someone. anything other than that is just reductive.
>>32018803https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3FI said mostly. the heritability of IQ is well-established
>>32018803>magic that allows you to know everything they know by hearing one sentence out of someone.i dont know why you made up some faggy scenario like this. see i can tell youre retarded and you just typed one sentence.
>>32018100Intelligence varies from person to person. You can be smart with an encylopedic knowledge of pop culture trivia, well-read with book smarts, or even a skilled tradesman who can fix an A/C or waterheater at the snap of his fingers. These are all signs of being a genius in their own right.It's really not about finding out who is intelligent. It's about seeing who is a midwit spouting contrarian nonsense or a potato brain who babbles out insane and idiotic gibberish. There is a few people that are intelligent for being an absolute dumbass. Karl Pilkington is a modern day philospher who usually says some stupid takes BUT they always make you think and ponder on the subject. Could, would, and should it be done.
>>32018803what he said is wrong as in, you're not bottlenecked by your expression, but your expression is in most cases an accurate reflection of your intelligence for the reasons I outlined. of course if that expression is limited by medical or mental issues, this is not the case
>>32018819>Karl Pilkington is a modern day philospherBased and Mr. Dilkington pilled.
>>32018100>I knew a guy once gotta had 160 iq >yes we are both politically and philosophically alignedIsn't it funny that the smartest person someone anecdotally has ever met never disagrees with them in any meaningful way?
>>32018807Okay, so you see things like perception and retention (from my post >>32018803>really, you are bottlenecked by your perception and retention.) as MORE important than the skills and languages that we learn and develop with after we leave the womb. that is your definition of intelligence. because essentially what you are measuring when you measure things like "IQ" is just the proficiency of English, Math etc. and selecting for the skills needed to acquire that. Standardized tests on specialized information relating to languages will always benefit a certain subset of your sample. But even having the ability to remember every word of every book you ever read or something does not guarantee you will use that intelligence in any way. So something is missing when you test like they did in the study. It also does not account for accumulation of knowledge from generation to generation, each parent making their child subsequently more intelligent simply through upbringing. Also genetic twin studies are coming under increased scrutiny nowadays.
>>32018774>Also, from birth your body is shaped by your material conditions, so really any innate advantage actually comes from your upbringing if not directly from your parents.If by innate advantage you mean ability to navigate and cope with societal demands, yes, this is largely influenced by upbringing. What I mean by their brains work better could be due to oxygen efficiency, but the effect is that, like others pointed out, they process faster, think deeper, etc. Of course, the problem with intelligent people from poor upbringings is that they often use most of their brainpower coping with crippling mental health issues.
>>32018733>like if you have any dumb accentLol
>>32018916>the problem with intelligent people from poor upbringings is that they often use most of their brainpower coping with crippling mental health issues.FUCKI did not have a materially poor upbringing but I was terribly under-disciplined and under-educated. I never learned to harness the power. Now I'm 35. My IQ has decreased to midwit, I think. Can I salvage a bearable life?
>>32018772>you worded it awkwardly but there's something to your point. people with a poor vocabulary often have a low IQ.that wasn't his point at all, dumbasspronouncing all your words like a retard has nothing to do with your vocabulary. you can have perfect diction with a kindergarten vocabulary, or sound full on palsy/downs with the ability to write novels
>>32018925You can salvage it for sure. Insight is the first step, and you're stronger for knowing the issue already. Maybe you should take it slow, start by picking up some fiction and getting into the habit of reading books? It's a little different for everyone, maybe you need competency in a different area, but reading consistently helped me a lot.
>>32018100Ask them something you know they'll lie about, and see if they're convincing.
>>32018778This. If you're really intelligent yourself, you'll be able to pick up on who is and who isn't right away and see through the pretenders quite easily.If you can't, and you're simply impressed by someone who uses a big word or parrots what they read somewhere, you may well be one of those pretenders yourself.
>>32018933he said 'how people speak' (meaning their diction and their vocabulary). the first only has a weak correlation with intelligence I imagine, the second an incredibly strong one
>>32018916>navigate and cope with societal demands>problem with intelligent people from poor upbringings is that they often use most of their brainpower coping with crippling mental health issues>process faster, think deeper, etcWhether or not you are struggling or thriving has nothing to do with any innate skill. why would you see learning how to function in society as different from learning anything else. processing "faster" is redundant because we all process information relative to our understanding and the innervation of neuronal pathways. thinking "deeper" also requires specialized context that is only relevant to subject matter.
>>32018925the best way to stave off cognitive decline is ( by far) physical excercise, followed by feeding your brain enough stimuli every day to induce neurogenesis>>32018907the thing is, even if we define intelligence as perception and retention ( which is pretty close to how I'd define it: the ability to see patterns of logic), those traits will still be reflected in your verbal aptitude. that's essence of the concept of the g-factor ( the underlying statistical intelligence factor) that's being measured by IQ. it influences every aspect of your cognition
>>32018941>You can salvage it for sure. Insight is the first step, and you're stronger for knowing the issue already.Thank you. /adv/ is always so helpful. I need to get some fucking therapy and maybe medication. I've been diagnosed bipolar 1 and have had psychoses. I don't have my "mental health is fake!" chud worldview anymore.
>>32019010>the best way to stave off cognitive decline is ( by far) physical excercise, followed by feeding your brain enough stimuli every day to induce neurogenesisYes. True. To think I was once a college athlete! There at others' expense for 5 years, just to grow. What a gift. Naturally, I failed to appreciate it and fucked it up.I'm a /fit/ guy who still pursues some athletic endeavors, but I need to step it up again. Peak condition one more time before old age...
>>32019039I know that feel man. Medication can help you focus and tame your episodes if you find the right one. Therapy could go a long way too. Often we need to alter the stories we tell ourselves to be more positive and forgiving, because living with these things doesn't leave much room for that.
>>32018733Lmao found that one incel dude from the Loveshy documentary that thinks you can't be intelligent unless you speak rapidly. This whole post is just as retarded, anon.
>>32019070>we need to alter the stories we tell ourselves to be more positive and forgivingYeah, I've tried to form a story of "learning, growing, losing illusions," but every time I'm "better now" I'm really on a worse path. Last time I tried to rise like the phoenix it was as a gigachud who quickly lost touch with reality and fell for conspiracy theory and superstition. After that I started again even lower, of course. I think that's what they call a "shame cycle."
>>32019010>the thing is, even if we define intelligence as perception and retention ( which is pretty close to how I'd define it: the ability to see patterns of logic), those traits will still be reflected in your verbal aptitude. that's essence of the concept of the g-factor ( the underlying statistical intelligence factor) that's being measured by IQ. it influences every aspect of your cognitionbut this "g-factor" is just how you encoded those patterns that you perceived and the storage of those patterns over a discrete time period. this effect is cumulative, and bottlenecked by various factors. individual differences come from the logic behind motivations for behaviors surrounding perception, retention and retrieval as well. Retrieval is its own skill, and requires its own forms of perception and retention. Retrieval is just one of many actions someone can take before or after acquiring information and creating "new information" or synthesizing a hypothesis. This is how we all create and communicate ideas. We are no different. We are the sum of all of the dictionaries, textbooks, novels, articles, essays, databases, text conversations, goddamn tweets. if I were better at calculus I would model it for you.
