How can you tell if someone is smart? -
- Thread starter Smolrolls
- Start date
When they're not OP.
When they don't make threads like this.
When their names don't end in 'shorts47'.
Samson Pumpkin Jr.
kiwifarms.net
in an argument, if they question everything you say and demand sources all the fucking time they're not smart. Smart people can distinguish if something is true or not on the fly
Nice one stealing this one from the youtube video about reddit AMA "when did you realize someone was smart?"
They ask questions that strike at the heart of the topic repeatedly.
Smart people don't just assume they know what you're talking about, because communication between people who are more than 30 IQ points apart is very difficult.
Smart people don't just assume they know what you're talking about, because communication between people who are more than 30 IQ points apart is very difficult.
ShortBusDriver
kiwifarms.net
They don't have to tell you that they're smart.
I'd like a source on that claim, sir. No wikipedia allowed. Only peer-reviewed scientific literature from a journal with an impact factor no less than 10.
urg notice smart when if has basic tool, such as pointy stick, obsidian knife, or food processor.
They acknowledge the ability of dogs to consent.
When @DocHoliday1977 shows up.
based lmao who cares about things originating from reddit
RX-78-2 is the best.
When they know the answer to the Jewish question.
"Why is this night different from all other nights?"
... What question did you think I meant?
"Why is this night different from all other nights?"
... What question did you think I meant?
According to Motion Picture Robert, you're smart and you MATTER because you live in a city on one of the coasts and enjoy the MCU and Mario.
You don't. You can get evidence that points to them being smart and makes the conclusion more likely, but knowing it for sure is difficult approaching impossible and using a single metric isn't going to get you very accurate results.
Someone saying that they're smart just means they are insecure. They may be smart, they probably aren't, but that probability is more a factor of smart people being rare than the fact that they made that comment.
Asking repeatedly for sources could mean a number of things. They may have been burned in the past or they could have been trained to do that by their community (e.g. reddit). It shows ignorance more than anything. They only have one tool in their epistemology and now they want to use it on everything. If they are young they could be smart just without a lot of life experience. If they are doing it when they are older, they probably aren't very smart or are very sheltered. Saying "Smart people can distinguish if something is true or not on the fly" is only true in narrow situations, like with a math savant. Smart people are only clairvoyant about all truth if you're living in a universe created by dumb people trying to write smart people. Smart people can fall to cognitive bias just like everyone else. The people who don't are wise, which is closely related to but different from being smart.
The point that "They ask questions that strike at the heart of the topic repeatedly" is an apt one. If someone does this it shows both an ability to remember and process information quickly which are signs of intelligence. But it also shows life experience, which is wisdom. Often it is hard to distinguish the two.
What will get you the best results, in my opinion, is looking at what someone has created and comparing it to things other people have created. Eventually you've looked at enough material that you can place new people's work on a continuum from "dumb" to "average" to "smart". If someone's work in their best field appears to be consistently smart then that person is probably smart.
Even though I consider this the best metric, it isn't perfect and I can still see flaws in it. This falls to the problem that someone's work could be smart, only the person is average but highly practiced, or someone's work could be anything but smart, but they are inexperienced. You could adjust for this by age like is done for IQ, but that still isn't perfect because a smart person could have started later. Another problem is you often have to have experience in the field to make the judgement (helped partly by the fact that you gain some experience by consuming content within the field).
Examining it deeply enough you end up arguing about definitions. What is smart? Is someone who is experienced smart? Is wisdom smart? I've made my positions pretty clear, but I can imagine there are good arguments that experience and wisdom are components of intelligence. They're certainly components of not doing dumb things.
Someone saying that they're smart just means they are insecure. They may be smart, they probably aren't, but that probability is more a factor of smart people being rare than the fact that they made that comment.
Asking repeatedly for sources could mean a number of things. They may have been burned in the past or they could have been trained to do that by their community (e.g. reddit). It shows ignorance more than anything. They only have one tool in their epistemology and now they want to use it on everything. If they are young they could be smart just without a lot of life experience. If they are doing it when they are older, they probably aren't very smart or are very sheltered. Saying "Smart people can distinguish if something is true or not on the fly" is only true in narrow situations, like with a math savant. Smart people are only clairvoyant about all truth if you're living in a universe created by dumb people trying to write smart people. Smart people can fall to cognitive bias just like everyone else. The people who don't are wise, which is closely related to but different from being smart.
The point that "They ask questions that strike at the heart of the topic repeatedly" is an apt one. If someone does this it shows both an ability to remember and process information quickly which are signs of intelligence. But it also shows life experience, which is wisdom. Often it is hard to distinguish the two.
What will get you the best results, in my opinion, is looking at what someone has created and comparing it to things other people have created. Eventually you've looked at enough material that you can place new people's work on a continuum from "dumb" to "average" to "smart". If someone's work in their best field appears to be consistently smart then that person is probably smart.
Even though I consider this the best metric, it isn't perfect and I can still see flaws in it. This falls to the problem that someone's work could be smart, only the person is average but highly practiced, or someone's work could be anything but smart, but they are inexperienced. You could adjust for this by age like is done for IQ, but that still isn't perfect because a smart person could have started later. Another problem is you often have to have experience in the field to make the judgement (helped partly by the fact that you gain some experience by consuming content within the field).
Examining it deeply enough you end up arguing about definitions. What is smart? Is someone who is experienced smart? Is wisdom smart? I've made my positions pretty clear, but I can imagine there are good arguments that experience and wisdom are components of intelligence. They're certainly components of not doing dumb things.
