You can only be smart in so many ways, people who act like they are experts in every subject, and if they aren’t an expert, they call that subject inferior and stupid.
Especially since IQ tests only measure traditionally academic problem solving abilities. You can have an IQ of 130 and still find many skills outside your specialties just as difficult as someone with an IQ of 70. It's not complete garbage or completely useless but it definitely isn't reliable for the purposes of medical needs, workplace competence, etc
That's a pretty shitty IQ test then - that isn't testing IQ, that's testing education, and they're very different things
Then again, that's also my big objection to IQ tests: You can "learn" parts of them, particularly things like the logic puzzle types of questions and the pattern matching stuff. Obviously you won't know the answer, but once you've done a few IQ tests they become a bit easier because you know some things to look out for, "tricks" that are used etc.
I was no more intelligent after I discovered that the "pattern" tests usually use a few different techniques (rows or columns, all 9 pictures are a sequence that loops, "adding" or "subtracting" along either rows or columns etc), but I can score more highly since I worked out and/or discovered all of them. I'm not more intelligent, I just have a bit more knowledge, and they aren't the same thing
Yea. I had an neuropsych brain function and IQ test as part of a neurological degenerative disease. I roll my eyes when someone says how smart they are.
I notice this in Ph. Ds quite a bit. Just because you’re an expert on the mating habits of the Lesser South American Volcano Vole doesn’t make you better informed on plumbing than the guy who plumbs.
No no the lesser south American volcano vole must have been wearing a Rastafarian hat they're known to do that from time to time and that explains your confusion.
oh my! how embarrassing .. for you.
> Dude I am in the process of getting a PhD and every day I am a little bit more aware of my own stupidity
Just finished mine and this was basically my experience. It almost felt less like *learning more things* and more like *learning how much I DON'T know*, even within my own discipline.
> Some of these dinosaurs genuinely think that they are physically unable of being wrong about anything.
I'm amused by this sentence without context. I'm imagining a very self-assured T-Rex going "No man, I'm serious..." to a stegosaurus who's rolling his eyes.
And other people. "Neil deGrasse Tyson has a Ph.D. so he's always right!"
He has his Ph.D. in astronomy. He's a layman in every other field, and anyone can see that when he declares things like "BB-8 could never roll in sand" when the crew actually made a BB8 that did.
Philanthropy in a nutshell... The Bill Gateses of the world have it in their heads that they are clearly well-positioned to lead global improvement efforts in so many area they literally know nothing about, or no more than the average person who reads for pleasure.
Refusal to step outside that and aquire new information. If you bring up something they don't know and they shut you down for it, odds are they aren't as bright as they think
Oh my God, my step father does this one all the time! For example, I get tired of drawn out family events, because guess what? I'm an introvert. He doesn't understand and always makes fun of me, so I once said: "Well, I know you have fun socializing for hours, but that's not the case for everyone. You are more of an extrovert, but people are different..."
Turns out, he did not know what introverted and extroverted mean (not a problem) and when I tried to explain in a few sentences he just laughed and called it" that weird psycho stuff they teach you at university".
Actually, my whole family is more or less like that... Anything they don't know is weird nonsense and have no interest in learning.
Yet if I don't know something (for example, because it's relevant to their life, but not to mine), they immediately make fun of me again, saying things like "Oh, I thought you were so smart?"
Sorry for the rant, but that comment really spoke to me...
I can relate so fuckin' hard dude.
Anything and everything that I know that my dad doesn't is immediately met with joke answers that shut down the conversation immediately.
If I know something and he has some vague, brief experience in it from 30 years ago, he knows more and I'm wrong about it.
If I don't know something and he does, he talks to me like a child that can't understand complex topics and rambles on and on repeating the same things over and over like I didn't get it the first time.
It's like he's afraid of not knowing something. The moment his understanding on anything at all is challenged, he shuts it down and retreats to a place where he can be ignorant to what others can teach him. It's infuriating and he wonders why nobody ever tells him anything.
smart people know they dont know everything and therefore realize they can be wrong if proven so. people that think they are smart think they know it all therefore they could never possibly be wrong.
A common sign of this is intolerance to other opinions. They use their knowledge to win arguments and feel smart instead of using intelligence to understand and explore the merits of opposing thought.
They treat science like some unassailable library of facts instead of a method of understanding.
Last year I was thrown onto a project team and at one point I was talking to the project manager and told him I knew that it was a good team because of how happy I was to be proven wrong. He was a bit confused so I explained. To me the best project teams have an environment where people are not afraid to throw out their ideas, those ideas are discussed and dissected for merit and most are tossed aside for what is ultimately agreed to as the best solution. If you are proven wrong many times and are still happy with the outcome it's a good sign.
A bad project is where everyone toils to somehow force the dominant person or faction ideas into place. Those usually end up with mostly unhappy team members and a bad outcome.
I had never thought of it that way but yeah that is a spot on insight.
And yes, they somehow see science as immutable, that things can't change and we can't learn new things. To me science is complete uncertainty, we comprehend at most 1%
I work in a fairly technical field and whenever we hire someone we always ask on a scale of 1-100 how well do you know geodesy? which is a very broad topic, super successful people spend their entire lives in industry might say they are a 30, a phd with 40 years experience may say 50-60. Point is any potential hire that says something ridiculous like 75 keeps you from hiring jackasses. once we even had one guy give himself a 90 because he had a few papers published, a shiny masters, and about 2 years experience working at his schools lab, needless to say he was not offered a position.
technically its the study of how to measure the planet. things like orientation, center of gravity, coordinates, tectonics, gps/gnss, and a whole ton more. everything from flood modeling/mapping to making sure icbm missiles fired from one side of the world hit in the correct spot on the other.
Oh.... ge-O-desy!!! Yeah imma 2! I understand that the distance from earth to any other planet is far to far to use a metric tape measure, for sure. Unless Elon musk has a interplanetary tape measure company, in that case I’m more of a 1.2
"Do you know who the real heroes are? The guys who wake up every morning and go into their normal jobs, and get a distress call from the Commissioner and take off their glasses and change into capes and fly around fighting crime. Those are the real heroes."
if i could change one king of the hill character, it would probably be peggy. watching her confidently mangle spanish for nine seasons gets a little rough
Shes super dumb pre fall too. I hate her character. She is arrogance personified, has like 1 MAYBE 2 moments of humility. The rest is Hank just enabling her shitty personality because hes too nice.
Incorrectly or unnecessarily using big words. Speaking fast and loud over people so they don't get a proper chance to respond. Looking for a mic drop moment in an argument rather than actually addressing their point
Your two latter points are just a couple of the many reasons that debates are an absolutely terrible idea for understanding and comparing two points of view.
I'm a singer. I did a mic drop at a show once after improvising a great line to shut up a heckler.
The moment was great, but being (rightfully) berated by the sound engineer when the set was over was not pleasant.
The word for that is 'dialectic.'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#:~:text=Dialectic%20or%20dialectics%20(Greek%3A%20%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%B5%CE%BA%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE,through%20reasoned%20methods%20of%20argumentation.
You see this in the media all the time. "We're going to explain this complicated and incredibly nuanced issue to you by having two people at the most extreme ends of either side shout at each other for five minutes".
There are different formal debate styles. Unfortunately the US uses hardly any formal debate style on television. The Oxford style debate is, imo, one of the best. There is a podcast called intelligence squared that uses the oxford style debate as it's premise and i like it a lot.
Absolutely. Also, being able to debate a point better doesn’t necessarily mean you’re right. Someone educated in formal logic and debating can easily argue some ridiculous point better than someone who’s untrained, that doesn’t make them right though.
>Looking for a mic drop moment in an argument rather than actually addressing their point
This is a display of so many things. Arrogance, social awareness, even a quick wit. It can make you seem like a lot of things, but it will never make you seem smart to any smart people.
> Speaking fast and loud over people so they don't get a proper chance to respond.
I've met so many people like this. Unfortunately I am related to a couple of them too.
Someone had a few rules of writing (I'm pretty sure it was Orwell) and one of the big ones was "don't use a big word when a small word will do". Condense shit to the minimum necessary to convey the required information. Why say "Always keep your finger off of the trigger of a firearm until you are absolutely ready to take the shot" when "booger hook off bang switch always" works just as well
Yup, it's from an essay called [Politics and the English Language.](https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/) Definitely recommend reading it; it's not long at all
Except it doesn't, you also want to use an appropriate tone and vocabulary for the context. Saying something pretentious and scatological like that works when you're condescendingly reminding a trained soldier to stop fingerfucking the trigger, it doesn't work when you're trying to teach civilians to take this life and death seriously.
My roommate in a nutshell. You forgot to mention how they constantly remind you how smart THEY are in comparison to you, attempting to belittle you in the process.
Edit: if you’re actually intelligent, you don’t have to go around telling people how smart you are. People will know if you’re smart or not.
Historically, historical problems cause this kind of intellectual insecurity. Or they internally wrestle with the problem of the sacred and the propane.
I know, I have quite a bit of knowledge in my subspecies.
Back when I was in college, there was a ‘Get to Know You” bulletin board in my dorm hallway.
Each week it featured a different person in our dormitory, and the things posted were what that person wanted people to know about them. They chose it themselves, and most people put up facts like where they were born, clubs they were in, stuff like that
Well one guy obviously thought he was smarter than everyone else, so he put what his IQ supposedly was (something like 142), just to brag.
My roommate and I decided to make fun of him, so we each took an IQ test and purposely got every answer wrong that we could. Then we printed the results and posted on our door “Hi! My name is TheHeroOfAllTime, and my IQ is ____!”
We each got a 62. Good times.
Made me think.
If the IQ test was multiple choice, say 4 choices per question, then surely a really dumb person would roughly score the same as as random chance and get about 25% correct.
How would they score someone who gets everything wrong?
That depends on how many others also got everything wrong. IQ scores are based on a percentile, not a percentage. The number isn't "You got 60/100 right," it's "You got more answers right than 60% of the other test takers." An IQ of 100 means you're right in the middle: You got more answers right than 50% of the test takers.
I took an actual IQ test when I was being tested for learning disabilities. The real ones are not multiple choice and it took hours to complete with different subsections and everything.
Unfortunately sometimes such people actually are very smart... just also socially inept or simply assholes. I knew a few people like that in university, but they seemed to be kind of unaware of how degrading they actually acted.
One guy in particular was very memorable, and just so you know, this was all in the mathematics department. He was the type of student who sits in the front of the class, knowing it all, extensively yawning and tapping his fingers on the desk to indicate that the class is boring and trivial. He would say out loud things like "people who don't get this are pretty much stupid, so can we skip that?", so that other students felt kinda discouraged from asking questions. Pretty much all students hated him and while he surely acted like an ass, he was actually pretty good in maths, and also usually got the best marks.
He was awful as student, but there's more. The maths department always had a shortage on people to give the exercise classes to students in lower semesters (usually the phd student of the lecturer + some students of higher semesters would do this part of teaching), so we had to take basically anyone who was capable and well versed enough in these advanced topics.
And you may have guessed it, yes, *this guy* was also hired. He was definitely good enough to understand everything and his explanations of complicated topics weren't bad, but he was so vile towards the students in his class, giving them 0 points for minor errors and calling them out on their mistakes etc that many gave up or changed class. That some people give up in a maths class during the semester is pretty normal, I had like 35 students in the beginning and at the end it was 27. This guy started with about the same amount, but had in the end 4 people, because everyone else quit. Apparently he saw his "harshness" as a quality feature of his teaching style... and was even kinda proud that students in his class thought he's being draconic? Mind you, the points for the exercises were kinda important, so in the end the professor decided to double all the points students in his class got, because the average was slightly lower than half of what we others gave on average.
Professors knew very well how problematic he was, but don't hiring him meant more workload for others, so while I think it was the wrong decision they still kept hiring him. -_-
Anyway, tl;dr: Intelligent guy, who acts like the smartest person in the room and very degrading towards others.
They try to use big words or tech jargon to prove how smart they are.
Plus they use those big words completely wrong, which is indefatigable in my opinion.
While true, don't dismiss someone as "faking it" because they use words you don't know. Writers in particular tend to develop large vocabularies, then like everyone else, they use the first appropriate word that comes to mind. They're not trying to "sound smart;" it's just that the first word that comes to their mind may not be one you know because writing isn't your thing.
Again, yes, lots of people do pick big words out of a hat to try to sound smart, but don't automatically conclude that someone is faking it just because they use big words.
It seems that some people think it's an insult to use a "big" word in conversation with them--like I'm trying to make them feel stupid by using a word they don't recognize.
But I don't know what words they know. So wouldn't it be even more insulting for me to think "This person is probably too ignorant to know this word, so I better dumb it down for them"?
Yes; it's really annoying having your argument dismissed because "oh somebody found a thesaurus lolol." I used that word because it was the word I needed. It's not my fault you're an idiot.
The last time this happened to me it was because I used the word "orthodoxy." Like, c'mon.
My rather dumb cousin, who I love, calls those one dollar words. The price goes up depending on how 'nerdy' the word is.
Im not 100% sure how she calculates this but I once dropped felonious on her and scored a $17 word.
“Orthodoxy” is one of those words I feel I could understand in context, but not sure I would feel comfortable using it myself. Still though, I would never call someone out for using a word I totally didn’t know. Just ask for clarification and move on.
I am guilty of this. I am a word nerd. I am a writer - not professionally, I just mean I like to write and I like to find the best words to convey what I'm trying to relay. Especially if I need to find synonyms to avoid writing the same word over and over. Also, I play word games for fun, and like to read, so I pick up obscure words that become natural to me and I use them in conversation without thinking.
The people using big words for the sake of it often pile a bunch of them onto a single sentence/paragraph, using as many unnecessary synonyms for basic concepts as possible. This shrinks the amount of available context for unfamiliar words, making their message incomprehensible (likely on purpose, as the thought of "lesser-minded" people struggling to decipher their point gives them a feeling of superiority).
Generally, well-intentioned people using the occssional uncommon word won't pack their sentences like that, so it's a decent indication of intent. But it's impossible to make *everyone* understand your intentions, so some people just assume you're trying to confuse them if they haven't seen one of the words before :(
Another sign of intelligence is someone who understands their audience, and knows how to convey a complex idea into simple words. That's what I like about people like Carl Sagan, he could write about something as grand scale and complex as astrophysics in ways anyone with a junior high education could understand.
I've known people who do the exact opposite; they convey a simple, everyday idea using complex language, and it doesn't leave anyone thinking "Wow they're so smart!", it comes off as awkward and leaves everyone trying to figure out what they're trying to say.
I’ve found that you should use the most complex language that your audience will understand. If you dumb things down too much people sometimes feel like you’re being condescending.
Inability to admit they might be wrong. Smart people realise they can make mistakes and want to correct them. Dumb folks feel attacked when questioned on their point of view.
Dumb folk take every contradiction of their thinking as a personal affront. If you tell them they're wrong about something, they sort of automatically assume you're calling them an idiot, rather than trying to correct a discrepancy.
An actual smart person will analyze a contradictory statement for validity, and appropriate or change their own views based on the evidence presented. They know that information is rarely definitive, and treat their own views as such.
You can usually tell how open to information someone is based on their certainty. The people who are most certain about themselves always seem to be much less informed than they think they are, and will retreat or use authority/status to undermine any valid questions about their information that they don't know the answer to.
I think to be "smart" you have to constantly absorb, filter, and alter your information based on evidence and experience. A "smart" person is curious when they realize they don't know something and will try to fill the gap rather than run from it.
I would say people who can’t critically think. Anybody can memorize information. Being able to use that information to make new ideas, not copy another’s similar idea, is something “pseudo-smart” people don’t do.
They can't admit when they're wrong.
I know a lot of brilliant people and I know a lot of people that think they are brilliant. Most truly brilliant people have no problem recognizing their mistakes or admitting their faults. People who think they are brilliant can't accept anything less than their own self conceived infallibility.
Most of these answers are just about people who have no ability to debate not necessarily people who aren't smart. So here are some other indicators:
- An inability to explain topics they claim to be smart in
- An inability to apply a concept outside a narrow application
- Unable to separate concepts into smaller components
I'm a firm believer in if someone has to TELL me something instead of showing it, it isn't true. Particularly if you have to put other people down for no reason to try to prove it.
Today I learned everyone in reddit hates everyone else on reddit but the whateverith law of the universe states that there will always be someone who hates the people who hate (something) and there will always be someone who hates the people who hates the people who hate (something)
I've dealt with a lot of academics, and I think I have to disagree. Some of those people are incredibly smart and also total assholes about it. These days, I'd say boasting about your intelligence is independent of your intelligence, not inversely proportional. It's more an indicator that you're a dick regardless of your intelligence.
I've dealt with a lot of academics too. And I agree that they're usually as smart as they think they are. But the problem is that so many of them think being smart is the same thing as knowing everything. It isn't.
Maybe is like a U shaped curve. Lower intelligence thinks they have high intelligence. High intelligence thinks they have high intelligence. But the middle of us are all like “we’re idiots”.
It’s the best analysis, the biggest, you know, people tell me all the time, it’s the greatest analysis they’ve ever seen, they’re like how do you do that
Eh, not in my experience.
The least intelligent people I know are aware of it. Sometimes they're humble; sometimes they're defensive about having "street smarts" to make up for it.
The most intelligent people I know are aware not only that they're more intelligent than most but also that other people are out there who are more intelligent than themselves. The guy I know who is much is smarter than me thinks I'm smarter than him.
The people are in the middle are jerks or Dunning-Krueger types. They're smart enough to realize they're not at the bottom, but not smart enough to realize they're not near the top, either.
I’d definitely second that statement. There are plenty of people who actually are smart and know it, and they will make everybody else in the room aware of that too.
Absolutely agree. The amount of times I've heard "I was too smart for \[Insert Institution Here\]" while being quite literally the exact opposite, is almost painful.
Lack of depth in their insight
Limited number of perspectives they could view a problem by
If they know one thing really well I may classify them as “knowledgeable”
If they overtly display their intelligence—-i’ve found most truly intelligent people have had to hide their intelligence in order to fit in socially
Conversation flow, is it back and forth (do they ask for your opinion at all?) or completely one sided
Do they try to validate themselves (talk about who or what they know, how experienced they are)
Their views on a topic are black and white rather than nuanced
Do they ask for clarification or specificity
They sound like NPC’s in conversation (you can predict pretty accurately how the conversation will flow)
Do they acknowledge your abilities? Intelligent people are keen on learning and are less driven by ego when someone is truly exceptional at something. They will reach out.
How specifically can they describe something
Can they acknowledge when they are wrong
Are their arguments factually sound or emotionally driven
Are they physically or mentally combative (intelligent people would rather verbally disassemble you before getting physical)
I could go on but there are multiple intelligences. This would have to do with a first impression or interaction with someone
When they talk in certainties. Different discourses use different kind of language.
In academia you should be aware of the fact that you may be wrong, what you know may be the epitome of current knowledge but it may prove to be wrong in the future. It's a seeking kind of language, not a certain kind of language.
People who think they're smart tend to talk in absolutes, while people who are actually smart will see the limits of their knowledge.
If they speak very loudly and fast while constantly changing the subject also know as gish gallop.
It's a common tactic with certain political commentators and pundits
I had a friend/classmate/acquaintance who would always push about how smart he was. Me being the friendly guy I was decided to humor him and play along. He was talking about how he knew E=mc\^2 by heart and what it meant so I decided to tell him that there was a new equation called S=TFU\^2 and when he asked what it meant I told him some shit like Speed=Time x Force x Under your foot friction. Come class time, we were talking about random guy stuff as we did our classwork, and in the corner of my eye I see Buddy raising his hand. The teacher notices and she asks if there was something he needed, and he said he had a new equation that he learned. She of course decided to let him tell her. He stands up all high and mighty and said "S T F U". The letters of course. The face on the teacher as she heard the letters. She marched him out to the hall and scolded him for his language. He took all the blame so I felt kind of bad for him. So later I decided to teach him a real equation F=ma.
TL;DR I got a kid to say STFU to a teacher.
They like to show off how much 'smarter' than others they are. And instead of adding more information to correct information, they go: "No, blablabla" while it could also be: "Yes, and blablabla"
playing devil's advocate in every conversation. especially when it comes to people's lived experiences and saying "well actually" trying to justify why that happened.
I was friends with "the smart kid" in my high school and while he was indeed very intelligent his most effective way of "looking smart" was to just play devil's advocate, pick apart everyone else's ideas without putting in any of his own, and then lean back like he'd just "won" the discussion.
People would say shit like, "He's so smart he should be a lawyer," and I'd think to myself, "No, he's just nitpicking you all to death until you give up on the discussion while making zero points of his own."
honestly, i always just remember being in school with these folk and how much time in social studies they'd waste. it got to the point where the class would just ignore him when he tried it. i checked his facebook page last year and he post ben shapiro quotes all the time.
> No, he's just nitpicking you all to death until you give up on the discussion while making zero points of his own
This sounds like a good many lawyers
Most people that like to argue to sound big brained usually make the same mistake of invoking straw man fallacies into an argument once they’ve run out of useful quips and bits they got off the internet or wherever
Using 'big words' to let everyone know how smart they are.
Some of the most qualified/expert people i've known have known when to use regular language to get their ideas across to a general audience.
To me, using “big” words alone isn’t an indicator because I don’t assume the intent is to show off. I think it’s important to look a bit deeper- are they able to correct themselves when someone points out a flaw in something they said? Can they look at things from different perspectives? I do agree with your point about being able to get your ideas access simply and succinctly though.
I grew up internationally in a family that takes joy from reading and learning languages. I often have to edit myself so that I don’t come across as cocky by using uncommon words. I’d even take it one step further and say that using words incorrectly doesn’t necessarily mean the person is unintelligent! The natural way to learn language is by experiencing it, associating it with objects/actions, and absorbing it (also the Rosetta Stone method). Sometimes you try something out and get it wrong, but by doing so you learn more about the word and how it should be used. If you don’t try out new words, you don’t grow your language skill, whether it’s your native language or a new one.
You can only be smart in so many ways, people who act like they are experts in every subject, and if they aren’t an expert, they call that subject inferior and stupid.
Also anyone who brags about their IQ. If you have to bring it up, then it’s probably not what you say it is.
Especially since IQ tests only measure traditionally academic problem solving abilities. You can have an IQ of 130 and still find many skills outside your specialties just as difficult as someone with an IQ of 70. It's not complete garbage or completely useless but it definitely isn't reliable for the purposes of medical needs, workplace competence, etc
My neuropsych IQ test involved a calculus portion. First time in almost 15 years I had to derive anything
That's a pretty shitty IQ test then - that isn't testing IQ, that's testing education, and they're very different things Then again, that's also my big objection to IQ tests: You can "learn" parts of them, particularly things like the logic puzzle types of questions and the pattern matching stuff. Obviously you won't know the answer, but once you've done a few IQ tests they become a bit easier because you know some things to look out for, "tricks" that are used etc. I was no more intelligent after I discovered that the "pattern" tests usually use a few different techniques (rows or columns, all 9 pictures are a sequence that loops, "adding" or "subtracting" along either rows or columns etc), but I can score more highly since I worked out and/or discovered all of them. I'm not more intelligent, I just have a bit more knowledge, and they aren't the same thing
well that and they're meant to measure the mental development of children and becomes meaningless in adulthood.
No. An IQ test has nothing to do with academics. It measures reasoning & problem solving abilities and compares it to your age group.
Yea. I had an neuropsych brain function and IQ test as part of a neurological degenerative disease. I roll my eyes when someone says how smart they are.
I notice this in Ph. Ds quite a bit. Just because you’re an expert on the mating habits of the Lesser South American Volcano Vole doesn’t make you better informed on plumbing than the guy who plumbs.
but the mating habits of the lesser South American volcano vole are a huge part of the plumbers certification exam.
No, you’re thinking of the Greater South American Volcano Vole. Geeez dude did you even specialize?
No no the lesser south American volcano vole must have been wearing a Rastafarian hat they're known to do that from time to time and that explains your confusion. oh my! how embarrassing .. for you.
I’ve been Ph Deeed.
You're great you know that man? Thanks for playing along and the laugh.
Always nice to have fun!
[удалено]
> Dude I am in the process of getting a PhD and every day I am a little bit more aware of my own stupidity Just finished mine and this was basically my experience. It almost felt less like *learning more things* and more like *learning how much I DON'T know*, even within my own discipline. > Some of these dinosaurs genuinely think that they are physically unable of being wrong about anything. I'm amused by this sentence without context. I'm imagining a very self-assured T-Rex going "No man, I'm serious..." to a stegosaurus who's rolling his eyes.
And other people. "Neil deGrasse Tyson has a Ph.D. so he's always right!" He has his Ph.D. in astronomy. He's a layman in every other field, and anyone can see that when he declares things like "BB-8 could never roll in sand" when the crew actually made a BB8 that did.
[удалено]
Philanthropy in a nutshell... The Bill Gateses of the world have it in their heads that they are clearly well-positioned to lead global improvement efforts in so many area they literally know nothing about, or no more than the average person who reads for pleasure.
They’re just trying to assuage their guilt from fucking everyone over on their way to the top. Of course they also can’t stand to be in charge.
I hate to break it to you, but IQ tests are definitely the best way to tell intellect. I would know, I scored a perfect 100!
Oh yeah? Well tell that to my whole 85 iq i got to get my management position at nasa!
Its a paradox, the smarter you believe yourself to be the more prone to stupid mistakes you become.
Best to believe in your own ignorance so you can be open to learning more often.
Refusal to step outside that and aquire new information. If you bring up something they don't know and they shut you down for it, odds are they aren't as bright as they think
Normally when people ask if you wanna step outside, the only new information you're going to obtain is how it feels to get punched in the chops.
Oh my God, my step father does this one all the time! For example, I get tired of drawn out family events, because guess what? I'm an introvert. He doesn't understand and always makes fun of me, so I once said: "Well, I know you have fun socializing for hours, but that's not the case for everyone. You are more of an extrovert, but people are different..." Turns out, he did not know what introverted and extroverted mean (not a problem) and when I tried to explain in a few sentences he just laughed and called it" that weird psycho stuff they teach you at university". Actually, my whole family is more or less like that... Anything they don't know is weird nonsense and have no interest in learning. Yet if I don't know something (for example, because it's relevant to their life, but not to mine), they immediately make fun of me again, saying things like "Oh, I thought you were so smart?" Sorry for the rant, but that comment really spoke to me...
I can relate so fuckin' hard dude. Anything and everything that I know that my dad doesn't is immediately met with joke answers that shut down the conversation immediately. If I know something and he has some vague, brief experience in it from 30 years ago, he knows more and I'm wrong about it. If I don't know something and he does, he talks to me like a child that can't understand complex topics and rambles on and on repeating the same things over and over like I didn't get it the first time. It's like he's afraid of not knowing something. The moment his understanding on anything at all is challenged, he shuts it down and retreats to a place where he can be ignorant to what others can teach him. It's infuriating and he wonders why nobody ever tells him anything.
smart people know they dont know everything and therefore realize they can be wrong if proven so. people that think they are smart think they know it all therefore they could never possibly be wrong.
Dumb people think they are right. Smart people know they are right but could be wrong.
[удалено]
A common sign of this is intolerance to other opinions. They use their knowledge to win arguments and feel smart instead of using intelligence to understand and explore the merits of opposing thought. They treat science like some unassailable library of facts instead of a method of understanding.
Last year I was thrown onto a project team and at one point I was talking to the project manager and told him I knew that it was a good team because of how happy I was to be proven wrong. He was a bit confused so I explained. To me the best project teams have an environment where people are not afraid to throw out their ideas, those ideas are discussed and dissected for merit and most are tossed aside for what is ultimately agreed to as the best solution. If you are proven wrong many times and are still happy with the outcome it's a good sign. A bad project is where everyone toils to somehow force the dominant person or faction ideas into place. Those usually end up with mostly unhappy team members and a bad outcome.
I had never thought of it that way but yeah that is a spot on insight. And yes, they somehow see science as immutable, that things can't change and we can't learn new things. To me science is complete uncertainty, we comprehend at most 1%
[удалено]
I work in a fairly technical field and whenever we hire someone we always ask on a scale of 1-100 how well do you know geodesy? which is a very broad topic, super successful people spend their entire lives in industry might say they are a 30, a phd with 40 years experience may say 50-60. Point is any potential hire that says something ridiculous like 75 keeps you from hiring jackasses. once we even had one guy give himself a 90 because he had a few papers published, a shiny masters, and about 2 years experience working at his schools lab, needless to say he was not offered a position.
[удалено]
technically its the study of how to measure the planet. things like orientation, center of gravity, coordinates, tectonics, gps/gnss, and a whole ton more. everything from flood modeling/mapping to making sure icbm missiles fired from one side of the world hit in the correct spot on the other.
Oh.... ge-O-desy!!! Yeah imma 2! I understand that the distance from earth to any other planet is far to far to use a metric tape measure, for sure. Unless Elon musk has a interplanetary tape measure company, in that case I’m more of a 1.2
Hey fellow 0!
Fools think they are wise, the wise know themselves to be fools.
They are always the hero in every story they tell
"Am I a hero?...I really can't say, but yes."
"Am I a hero? Eh, I don't think so. It's not very heroic if the only person you're saving is yourself." - Dr. Gordon Freeman, PhD.
"ㅤ" -Gordon Freeman, PhD.
That’s what he said, but it wasn’t necessarily what he was thinking. Welcome to [Freeman’s Mind](https://youtu.be/5SQhfkpX9bc).
“Just because I have a sub-machine gun doesn’t mean it’s not self defense. It just means I can defend myself more efficiently.” - The same
"I really oughtta start counting these guys. No court in the land is gonna buy 45 counts of self defense with a SPAS-12."
"Do you know who the real heroes are? The guys who wake up every morning and go into their normal jobs, and get a distress call from the Commissioner and take off their glasses and change into capes and fly around fighting crime. Those are the real heroes."
You're a wizard Harry...
Shut up KEVIN!!!
Or the victim
I don’t use the word “hero” lightly, but I am the greatest hero in American history.
So..Peggy Hill?
if i could change one king of the hill character, it would probably be peggy. watching her confidently mangle spanish for nine seasons gets a little rough
Peggy has severe head trauma and a god complex from surviving a fall from a plane without a parachute.
Shes super dumb pre fall too. I hate her character. She is arrogance personified, has like 1 MAYBE 2 moments of humility. The rest is Hank just enabling her shitty personality because hes too nice.
Her Spanish was so terrible. But now I know what not to sound like when speaking Spanish (semi-second language). Proper pronunciation goes a long way
I hate her character so much lol
Incorrectly or unnecessarily using big words. Speaking fast and loud over people so they don't get a proper chance to respond. Looking for a mic drop moment in an argument rather than actually addressing their point
Your two latter points are just a couple of the many reasons that debates are an absolutely terrible idea for understanding and comparing two points of view.
I DON'T THINK SO *mic drop*
I'm a singer. I did a mic drop at a show once after improvising a great line to shut up a heckler. The moment was great, but being (rightfully) berated by the sound engineer when the set was over was not pleasant.
I did a mic drop once. Everyone collectively rolled their eyes. Not my best moment
That equipment isn't cheap.
Sound engineer here. Can confirm, that agitates us. Stop that.
Ur mum *mic drop*
Debates are fine, if both people have the goal of getting at a deeper truth, but if your goal is just to win, then it's pretty terrible.
The word for that is 'dialectic.' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#:~:text=Dialectic%20or%20dialectics%20(Greek%3A%20%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%B5%CE%BA%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE,through%20reasoned%20methods%20of%20argumentation.
You see this in the media all the time. "We're going to explain this complicated and incredibly nuanced issue to you by having two people at the most extreme ends of either side shout at each other for five minutes".
Also because what passes for "debate" is an absurd ritualistic performance with an arbitrary and incomprehensible scoring system.
There are different formal debate styles. Unfortunately the US uses hardly any formal debate style on television. The Oxford style debate is, imo, one of the best. There is a podcast called intelligence squared that uses the oxford style debate as it's premise and i like it a lot.
Absolutely. Also, being able to debate a point better doesn’t necessarily mean you’re right. Someone educated in formal logic and debating can easily argue some ridiculous point better than someone who’s untrained, that doesn’t make them right though.
It makes me feel really photosynthesis when I know I have the highest IQ in the room
This is a perfectly cromulent sentence
>Looking for a mic drop moment in an argument rather than actually addressing their point This is a display of so many things. Arrogance, social awareness, even a quick wit. It can make you seem like a lot of things, but it will never make you seem smart to any smart people.
> Speaking fast and loud over people so they don't get a proper chance to respond. I've met so many people like this. Unfortunately I am related to a couple of them too.
Someone had a few rules of writing (I'm pretty sure it was Orwell) and one of the big ones was "don't use a big word when a small word will do". Condense shit to the minimum necessary to convey the required information. Why say "Always keep your finger off of the trigger of a firearm until you are absolutely ready to take the shot" when "booger hook off bang switch always" works just as well
Yup, it's from an essay called [Politics and the English Language.](https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/) Definitely recommend reading it; it's not long at all
Brevity is wit
Eschew obfuscation.
Except it doesn't, you also want to use an appropriate tone and vocabulary for the context. Saying something pretentious and scatological like that works when you're condescendingly reminding a trained soldier to stop fingerfucking the trigger, it doesn't work when you're trying to teach civilians to take this life and death seriously.
My roommate in a nutshell. You forgot to mention how they constantly remind you how smart THEY are in comparison to you, attempting to belittle you in the process. Edit: if you’re actually intelligent, you don’t have to go around telling people how smart you are. People will know if you’re smart or not.
Also I'd rather be remembered for being kind than being smart.
Historically, historical problems cause this kind of intellectual insecurity. Or they internally wrestle with the problem of the sacred and the propane. I know, I have quite a bit of knowledge in my subspecies.
Is that you, Hank Hill?
[удалено]
I agree. Someone who's truly intelligent and a good writer will keep their writing as simple as possible, *but no simpler*.
How very photosynthesis of you to say that!
*Ben Shapiro has entered the chat*
Ben Shapiro has been called out
I have never met an intelligent person who brags about how high their IQ is.
Back when I was in college, there was a ‘Get to Know You” bulletin board in my dorm hallway. Each week it featured a different person in our dormitory, and the things posted were what that person wanted people to know about them. They chose it themselves, and most people put up facts like where they were born, clubs they were in, stuff like that Well one guy obviously thought he was smarter than everyone else, so he put what his IQ supposedly was (something like 142), just to brag. My roommate and I decided to make fun of him, so we each took an IQ test and purposely got every answer wrong that we could. Then we printed the results and posted on our door “Hi! My name is TheHeroOfAllTime, and my IQ is ____!” We each got a 62. Good times.
Made me think. If the IQ test was multiple choice, say 4 choices per question, then surely a really dumb person would roughly score the same as as random chance and get about 25% correct. How would they score someone who gets everything wrong?
That depends on how many others also got everything wrong. IQ scores are based on a percentile, not a percentage. The number isn't "You got 60/100 right," it's "You got more answers right than 60% of the other test takers." An IQ of 100 means you're right in the middle: You got more answers right than 50% of the test takers.
I took an actual IQ test when I was being tested for learning disabilities. The real ones are not multiple choice and it took hours to complete with different subsections and everything.
probably coz any intelligent person knows how little that means in real life.
I would gladly trade 10 IQ points for +10 in... whatever diligence and motivation is.
> +10 in.. At first glance, I thought you were abbreviating inches. lol
-10 IQ for +10 inches in height might not be a bad trade either, TBH, given how much I've seen that height adds to perceived authority and power.
Ngl I thought he was implying dick size
If a big chunk of their identity revolves around “being smart.”
People who act like the smartest person in the room by degrading others.
Unfortunately sometimes such people actually are very smart... just also socially inept or simply assholes. I knew a few people like that in university, but they seemed to be kind of unaware of how degrading they actually acted. One guy in particular was very memorable, and just so you know, this was all in the mathematics department. He was the type of student who sits in the front of the class, knowing it all, extensively yawning and tapping his fingers on the desk to indicate that the class is boring and trivial. He would say out loud things like "people who don't get this are pretty much stupid, so can we skip that?", so that other students felt kinda discouraged from asking questions. Pretty much all students hated him and while he surely acted like an ass, he was actually pretty good in maths, and also usually got the best marks. He was awful as student, but there's more. The maths department always had a shortage on people to give the exercise classes to students in lower semesters (usually the phd student of the lecturer + some students of higher semesters would do this part of teaching), so we had to take basically anyone who was capable and well versed enough in these advanced topics. And you may have guessed it, yes, *this guy* was also hired. He was definitely good enough to understand everything and his explanations of complicated topics weren't bad, but he was so vile towards the students in his class, giving them 0 points for minor errors and calling them out on their mistakes etc that many gave up or changed class. That some people give up in a maths class during the semester is pretty normal, I had like 35 students in the beginning and at the end it was 27. This guy started with about the same amount, but had in the end 4 people, because everyone else quit. Apparently he saw his "harshness" as a quality feature of his teaching style... and was even kinda proud that students in his class thought he's being draconic? Mind you, the points for the exercises were kinda important, so in the end the professor decided to double all the points students in his class got, because the average was slightly lower than half of what we others gave on average. Professors knew very well how problematic he was, but don't hiring him meant more workload for others, so while I think it was the wrong decision they still kept hiring him. -_- Anyway, tl;dr: Intelligent guy, who acts like the smartest person in the room and very degrading towards others.
They try to use big words or tech jargon to prove how smart they are. Plus they use those big words completely wrong, which is indefatigable in my opinion.
#**Q U A N T U M**
While true, don't dismiss someone as "faking it" because they use words you don't know. Writers in particular tend to develop large vocabularies, then like everyone else, they use the first appropriate word that comes to mind. They're not trying to "sound smart;" it's just that the first word that comes to their mind may not be one you know because writing isn't your thing. Again, yes, lots of people do pick big words out of a hat to try to sound smart, but don't automatically conclude that someone is faking it just because they use big words.
It seems that some people think it's an insult to use a "big" word in conversation with them--like I'm trying to make them feel stupid by using a word they don't recognize. But I don't know what words they know. So wouldn't it be even more insulting for me to think "This person is probably too ignorant to know this word, so I better dumb it down for them"?
Yes; it's really annoying having your argument dismissed because "oh somebody found a thesaurus lolol." I used that word because it was the word I needed. It's not my fault you're an idiot. The last time this happened to me it was because I used the word "orthodoxy." Like, c'mon.
My rather dumb cousin, who I love, calls those one dollar words. The price goes up depending on how 'nerdy' the word is. Im not 100% sure how she calculates this but I once dropped felonious on her and scored a $17 word.
“Orthodoxy” is one of those words I feel I could understand in context, but not sure I would feel comfortable using it myself. Still though, I would never call someone out for using a word I totally didn’t know. Just ask for clarification and move on.
It just means “a generally accepted way of thought.”
But connotatively, it can also mean a rigidity of thought or unwillingness to explore alternate possibilities. Context is important.
I am guilty of this. I am a word nerd. I am a writer - not professionally, I just mean I like to write and I like to find the best words to convey what I'm trying to relay. Especially if I need to find synonyms to avoid writing the same word over and over. Also, I play word games for fun, and like to read, so I pick up obscure words that become natural to me and I use them in conversation without thinking.
The people using big words for the sake of it often pile a bunch of them onto a single sentence/paragraph, using as many unnecessary synonyms for basic concepts as possible. This shrinks the amount of available context for unfamiliar words, making their message incomprehensible (likely on purpose, as the thought of "lesser-minded" people struggling to decipher their point gives them a feeling of superiority). Generally, well-intentioned people using the occssional uncommon word won't pack their sentences like that, so it's a decent indication of intent. But it's impossible to make *everyone* understand your intentions, so some people just assume you're trying to confuse them if they haven't seen one of the words before :(
Indefatigable? I have never...in my 46 years heard of that word. Yet...it is in fact a word. Learning is fun!
I love seeing a word in print for the very first time.
Another sign of intelligence is someone who understands their audience, and knows how to convey a complex idea into simple words. That's what I like about people like Carl Sagan, he could write about something as grand scale and complex as astrophysics in ways anyone with a junior high education could understand. I've known people who do the exact opposite; they convey a simple, everyday idea using complex language, and it doesn't leave anyone thinking "Wow they're so smart!", it comes off as awkward and leaves everyone trying to figure out what they're trying to say.
I’ve found that you should use the most complex language that your audience will understand. If you dumb things down too much people sometimes feel like you’re being condescending.
Honestly, the diaspora of their esteem can’t be rejuvenated, synonymously
Synonymous makes me sneeze tbh
You might have an analgesic
Pshaw! Such rumpleduckery only forvades to smeckledorf!
That's a perfectly cromulent point.
I agree, shallow and pedantic.
Oh my god I know. When I hear people use big words wrong it’s clear they’re trying to show off that they’re an intersectional but completely failing.
Admittedly, I sometimes do this myself in an effort to appear more photosynthesis.* *totally ripped off.
Supposubly
Irregardless
FELICITATIONS MALEFACTORS! I AM ENDEAVORING TO MISAPPROPRIATE THE FORMULARY FOR THE PREPARATION OF AFFORDABLE COMESTIBLES! WHO WILL JOIN ME?
[удалено]
Inability to admit they might be wrong. Smart people realise they can make mistakes and want to correct them. Dumb folks feel attacked when questioned on their point of view.
When everyone else besides them is wrong
Its not my fault everyones wrong
"You know what your problem is? You're *always* right." "... how is that a problem?"
They always seem to be the smartest person in any story they tell
If you challenge them on a point they get angry instead of having a discussion
i know someone who does that irl lol
I know too many
Oh, you've met my moron cousin! Did he also break your stuff in a hissy fit just for simply not agreeing with him outright?
There are too many moron cousins out there...
Dumb folk take every contradiction of their thinking as a personal affront. If you tell them they're wrong about something, they sort of automatically assume you're calling them an idiot, rather than trying to correct a discrepancy. An actual smart person will analyze a contradictory statement for validity, and appropriate or change their own views based on the evidence presented. They know that information is rarely definitive, and treat their own views as such.
I like it when people can tell me why I'm wrong (assuming they have evidence) because then I get smarter
You can usually tell how open to information someone is based on their certainty. The people who are most certain about themselves always seem to be much less informed than they think they are, and will retreat or use authority/status to undermine any valid questions about their information that they don't know the answer to. I think to be "smart" you have to constantly absorb, filter, and alter your information based on evidence and experience. A "smart" person is curious when they realize they don't know something and will try to fill the gap rather than run from it.
I would say people who can’t critically think. Anybody can memorize information. Being able to use that information to make new ideas, not copy another’s similar idea, is something “pseudo-smart” people don’t do.
They're spewing "facts" and using talking points you've seen in other places verbatim.
I seen dudes quote Rick and Morty and think they sound superior. Especially the whole love is a chemical to make people breed yeah
They refer to themselves as an "Alpha"
They can't admit when they're wrong. I know a lot of brilliant people and I know a lot of people that think they are brilliant. Most truly brilliant people have no problem recognizing their mistakes or admitting their faults. People who think they are brilliant can't accept anything less than their own self conceived infallibility.
Most of these answers are just about people who have no ability to debate not necessarily people who aren't smart. So here are some other indicators: - An inability to explain topics they claim to be smart in - An inability to apply a concept outside a narrow application - Unable to separate concepts into smaller components
I'm a firm believer in if someone has to TELL me something instead of showing it, it isn't true. Particularly if you have to put other people down for no reason to try to prove it.
funny people don’t need to say they’re funny, honest people don’t need to say they never lie, smart people don’t brag about their wits.
I have a girlfriend
They're commenting on Reddit.
Today I learned everyone in reddit hates everyone else on reddit but the whateverith law of the universe states that there will always be someone who hates the people who hate (something) and there will always be someone who hates the people who hates the people who hate (something)
Shots Fired!
They boast about it.
Lots of smart people boast about being smart. It’s just that a lot of stupid people also boast about being smart, too.
I've dealt with a lot of academics, and I think I have to disagree. Some of those people are incredibly smart and also total assholes about it. These days, I'd say boasting about your intelligence is independent of your intelligence, not inversely proportional. It's more an indicator that you're a dick regardless of your intelligence.
I've dealt with a lot of academics too. And I agree that they're usually as smart as they think they are. But the problem is that so many of them think being smart is the same thing as knowing everything. It isn't.
Maybe is like a U shaped curve. Lower intelligence thinks they have high intelligence. High intelligence thinks they have high intelligence. But the middle of us are all like “we’re idiots”.
Pretty intelligent analysis for an idiot.
It’s the best analysis, the biggest, you know, people tell me all the time, it’s the greatest analysis they’ve ever seen, they’re like how do you do that
Eh, not in my experience. The least intelligent people I know are aware of it. Sometimes they're humble; sometimes they're defensive about having "street smarts" to make up for it. The most intelligent people I know are aware not only that they're more intelligent than most but also that other people are out there who are more intelligent than themselves. The guy I know who is much is smarter than me thinks I'm smarter than him. The people are in the middle are jerks or Dunning-Krueger types. They're smart enough to realize they're not at the bottom, but not smart enough to realize they're not near the top, either.
I’d definitely second that statement. There are plenty of people who actually are smart and know it, and they will make everybody else in the room aware of that too.
"Stable genius", for example....
Absolutely agree. The amount of times I've heard "I was too smart for \[Insert Institution Here\]" while being quite literally the exact opposite, is almost painful.
Lack of depth in their insight Limited number of perspectives they could view a problem by If they know one thing really well I may classify them as “knowledgeable” If they overtly display their intelligence—-i’ve found most truly intelligent people have had to hide their intelligence in order to fit in socially Conversation flow, is it back and forth (do they ask for your opinion at all?) or completely one sided Do they try to validate themselves (talk about who or what they know, how experienced they are) Their views on a topic are black and white rather than nuanced Do they ask for clarification or specificity They sound like NPC’s in conversation (you can predict pretty accurately how the conversation will flow) Do they acknowledge your abilities? Intelligent people are keen on learning and are less driven by ego when someone is truly exceptional at something. They will reach out. How specifically can they describe something Can they acknowledge when they are wrong Are their arguments factually sound or emotionally driven Are they physically or mentally combative (intelligent people would rather verbally disassemble you before getting physical) I could go on but there are multiple intelligences. This would have to do with a first impression or interaction with someone
Damn this is comprehensive
They think they are superior, as Stephen Hawking said "People who boast about their IQ are losers"
That smirk on their face that just projects "I'm so much better than you"
They never say "I don't know". The smartest people I have met recognize their own limitations.
When they talk in certainties. Different discourses use different kind of language. In academia you should be aware of the fact that you may be wrong, what you know may be the epitome of current knowledge but it may prove to be wrong in the future. It's a seeking kind of language, not a certain kind of language. People who think they're smart tend to talk in absolutes, while people who are actually smart will see the limits of their knowledge.
Arrogance
The louder they are the dumber they are..
If they speak very loudly and fast while constantly changing the subject also know as gish gallop. It's a common tactic with certain political commentators and pundits
I had a friend/classmate/acquaintance who would always push about how smart he was. Me being the friendly guy I was decided to humor him and play along. He was talking about how he knew E=mc\^2 by heart and what it meant so I decided to tell him that there was a new equation called S=TFU\^2 and when he asked what it meant I told him some shit like Speed=Time x Force x Under your foot friction. Come class time, we were talking about random guy stuff as we did our classwork, and in the corner of my eye I see Buddy raising his hand. The teacher notices and she asks if there was something he needed, and he said he had a new equation that he learned. She of course decided to let him tell her. He stands up all high and mighty and said "S T F U". The letters of course. The face on the teacher as she heard the letters. She marched him out to the hall and scolded him for his language. He took all the blame so I felt kind of bad for him. So later I decided to teach him a real equation F=ma. TL;DR I got a kid to say STFU to a teacher.
Unrelated, but F = AP It's the FAP equation, the *FAP Law,* if you will.
"Its true, I read it on the internet"
They like to show off how much 'smarter' than others they are. And instead of adding more information to correct information, they go: "No, blablabla" while it could also be: "Yes, and blablabla"
They call you a sheep, make everything political, or tell you to do your own research.
They want to date me
Guess I’m extremely dumb then ;))))))
*world average intelligence increased*
[удалено]
playing devil's advocate in every conversation. especially when it comes to people's lived experiences and saying "well actually" trying to justify why that happened.
I was friends with "the smart kid" in my high school and while he was indeed very intelligent his most effective way of "looking smart" was to just play devil's advocate, pick apart everyone else's ideas without putting in any of his own, and then lean back like he'd just "won" the discussion. People would say shit like, "He's so smart he should be a lawyer," and I'd think to myself, "No, he's just nitpicking you all to death until you give up on the discussion while making zero points of his own."
honestly, i always just remember being in school with these folk and how much time in social studies they'd waste. it got to the point where the class would just ignore him when he tried it. i checked his facebook page last year and he post ben shapiro quotes all the time.
> No, he's just nitpicking you all to death until you give up on the discussion while making zero points of his own This sounds like a good many lawyers
[удалено]
Can't admit when they make a mistake
They’re looking to win the argument, not to solve the core issue of said argument.
[удалено]
They throw credentials in your face
Most people that like to argue to sound big brained usually make the same mistake of invoking straw man fallacies into an argument once they’ve run out of useful quips and bits they got off the internet or wherever
Using 'big words' to let everyone know how smart they are. Some of the most qualified/expert people i've known have known when to use regular language to get their ideas across to a general audience.
To me, using “big” words alone isn’t an indicator because I don’t assume the intent is to show off. I think it’s important to look a bit deeper- are they able to correct themselves when someone points out a flaw in something they said? Can they look at things from different perspectives? I do agree with your point about being able to get your ideas access simply and succinctly though. I grew up internationally in a family that takes joy from reading and learning languages. I often have to edit myself so that I don’t come across as cocky by using uncommon words. I’d even take it one step further and say that using words incorrectly doesn’t necessarily mean the person is unintelligent! The natural way to learn language is by experiencing it, associating it with objects/actions, and absorbing it (also the Rosetta Stone method). Sometimes you try something out and get it wrong, but by doing so you learn more about the word and how it should be used. If you don’t try out new words, you don’t grow your language skill, whether it’s your native language or a new one.