Wondering if I could learn from better quality answers here in HN.
1. Knowing what you don’t know and knowing your limitations. Most people struggle with this.
2. People that ask good questions. Most people either ask no questions out of fear of being seen as dumb or ask, well, dumb questions.
3. Being able to figure things out on their own, without explicit instructions or directions. Sometimes a teacher or trainings help, but more often than not the answers are out there or can be discovered with a little bit of effort.
These traits show a good understand of one self and the situation.
Again, I don’t like to say intelligence is any one thing. The linebacker that reads the play perfectly pre-snap and shoots the gap as soon as the ball is hiked shows incredible intelligence that doesn’t translate to much these days outside of sports.
If my example does not fit the scenario we're discussing every time and in every case and in every variation, put your own example in place. I am not arguing about the example, it's an example. It's an e.g. not an i.e! Please understand the point of examples. It's a quick reference so we're on the same page, it is not the discussion.
If you've ever said "it's more like.." in response to someone's analogy yes I'm talking about you too haha. If I get it by making the analogy and you get it by annoyingly correcting me on which analogy I should have used.. we're good. Communication has occurred.
I guess not hyperfocusing on the conversational trimmings makes a person seem smart to me, stick to the meat and potatoes and I'll enjoy talking to you if nothing else :)
1. The quality of their questions: they're able to get to heart of the matter very quickly through asking relevant questions.
2. Ability to be perceptive, seeing both something that's odd and something that's not there, such as the curious incident of the dog in the night time.
3. Ability to explain things at the right level of the audience: I'm a big fan of 'Things Explainer' for this very reason.
Without access to IQ test scores or something analogous that measures what generally gets called general intelligence or G, you have to observe how well a person solves problems, especially novel problems that require reasoning ability. That can get situational: a person may show high intelligence solving a math or programming problem, but get stuck trying to start a stalled car or frying an egg. A smart person can reason about and solve problems, so they should eventually get the car started and learn how to fry an egg using their own resources and something like scientific method (eliminate variables, simplify the problem, hypothesize, test, refine, repeat).
I generally associate curiosity with intelligence. You can see that most easily with young children. Some seem curious about everything and ask lots of questions and try new things, others seem incurious. Adults may lack curiosity due to lack of interest, or focus on something else more important to them -- curiosity seems more situational with adults because they have more experience and preferences, and more demands on their attention and time. Even so, a curious adult willing to learn something new and take some risks (even just the risk of failing or looking inept) will strike me as more intelligent than someone who shows no curiosity.
An intelligent person wants to learn. An unintelligent person either thinks they already know everything, or doesn't care to learn anything new.
Too many people equate intelligence with thinking rationally. Actually, it’s a midwit habit to believe that rationality is achievable. The smart move is to realize the irrational source of all our preferences and prejudices without discarding them on that account, to embrace irrationality as a necessary component of human reasoning.
For example, an older man used to serve me my sub every day, at a fast food joint, and on our last encounter he handed me his book; it turns out he was a millionaire--he simply enjoyed hospitality and writing (makes sense ;).
However, one should aim to improve their ability to measure intelligence. This is done by being silent--by this I mean, stop your internal dialog (don't talk to yourself).
This is accomplished when you acknowledge you simply are not that important, however, this will socially isolate you in unexpected ways. A practical way to measure your progress is how defeated you are by someone less smart than you; when this is no longer true, then find a smarter person, and so forth.
If you manage this feat, you will notice you were merely taking inventory of your own world and no other one, your entire life (not learning from others). Here, I'm suggesting, that you must find truly intelligent humans, they rarely approach you, unless you are also smart.
So most answers will be half baked.
I personally like to differentiate raw power (int), smart (usually derived from int), wise (data quality, breath) and memory. To compare to NNs:
Int = compute
Smart = architecture
Wise = test data
Memory = ?
Types of "intelligence" depend most likely on dominating architecture.There are people that have math, social or artistic skills from my observations and each seems important to me. Depending on those different excellece niches.
- Varied perspectives and approaches to a given problem
- ability to ask good open-ended questions
- Understand the technical (rules or science based) and non-technical (humanities) implications
- abstract thinking ability, logical and mathematical intuition