The problem with judging another's intelligence on simply one thing.

[Racecar1994]

I'm gonna bother responding because of that last little sentence you provided. Listen. If I don't get why you're doing something after you've written probably close to thirty paragraphs on the subject, then maybe you should work on condensing what you say so that there isn't any "grey area" on what you're saying.

I work hard to go into that much detail because it is necessary to develop my point.

 

[Sudenak]

I work hard to go into that much detail because it is necessary to develop my point.

But if your point is lost in the sea of words, then perhaps the detail isn't necessary?

 

[Racecar1994]

All I see is a wall of fancy language and waffle which could probably be reduced to a couple of sentences, maybe a couple of paragraphs, of less fancy language.

I can't base your intelligence on this one thing, but I might be able to get a picture of your personality: Either you really use those words every day (maybe you're the Queen), or you're a ponce, or you for some reason decide to write essays on forums and just like essays.

I just had a conversation with another person born in 1994 (I'm judging THAT on your username) who writes in the same way as you in an attempt to fake intelligence.
Intelligence != Fancy English.
He was trying to be more 'posh' than me to 'win' the argument. This is what I berate others on the most - putting on a false sense of superiority when it's unnecessary.

I'm not trying to be posh with what I write, I'm writing to explain a point. A point like the one I'm trying to make is one that needs detail so that people can fully understand. 'Fancy language' as you put it is something which I've just been accustomed to writing. If you think this means I have been putting on false airs, then you've just proved that there are still people who judge others for one insignificant factor. I've consistently been reminded that my arguments need more detail and explanation, and since I think it's important I've provided that.

You also said:

I can't base your intelligence on this one thing

then immediately said in the next paragraph:

who writes in the same way as you in an attempt to fake intelligence.

I'm getting a mixed message there.

 

[Racecar1994]

I work hard to go into that much detail because it is necessary to develop my point.

But if your point is lost in the sea of words, then perhaps the detail isn't necessary?

Maybe. If the point needs simplifying, then let this be my overarching point: That it is unprofessional and inaccurate to judge others on one piece of doubtable evidence.

 

[Sudenak]

Maybe. If the point needs simplifying, then let this be my overarching point: That it is unprofessional and inaccurate to judge others on one piece of doubtable evidence.

Then let me give you my simplified retort: They are not judging the entire person. They are judging the person's action as stupid.

 

[Racecar1994]

Maybe. If the point needs simplifying, then let this be my overarching point: That it is unprofessional and inaccurate to judge others on one piece of doubtable evidence.

Then let me give you my simplified retort: They are not judging the entire person. They are judging the person's action as stupid.

For the most part, thankfully, that is the case. While I still don't like some people's decisions to judge others on uncertain evidence, it is the act that I despise rather than the person.

 

[Frankster]

I believe people who judge others on 1 thing usually fall into at least one of the following categories

-Those seeking to get an ego boost (i know the answer, therefore i'm worth more as a human being)
-Those seeking to reinforce their world view of everyone being dumb (they didn't know the answer? humanitys collective intelligence is going down)
-Those who lack understanding and judge on first impressions (they didn't know the answer cos they are complete retards rather then say...They didn't answer properly because they misread the question or forgot about a specific mathematical law like in that facebook 1+1+1-1x0 thingy)

And so forth, bottom line is that intelligence is rarely the thing being measure, especially as there are multiple forms of intelligence so having 1 unified value for it is dangerous (same reason IQ scores should be taken with a pinch of salt, it measures only certain aspects of intelligence)

 

[Abengoshis]

All I see is a wall of fancy language and waffle which could probably be reduced to a couple of sentences, maybe a couple of paragraphs, of less fancy language.

I can't base your intelligence on this one thing, but I might be able to get a picture of your personality: Either you really use those words every day (maybe you're the Queen), or you're a ponce, or you for some reason decide to write essays on forums and just like essays.

I just had a conversation with another person born in 1994 (I'm judging THAT on your username) who writes in the same way as you in an attempt to fake intelligence.
Intelligence != Fancy English.
He was trying to be more 'posh' than me to 'win' the argument. This is what I berate others on the most - putting on a false sense of superiority when it's unnecessary.

I'm not trying to be posh with what I write, I'm writing to explain a point. A point like the one I'm trying to make is one that needs detail so that people can fully understand. 'Fancy language' as you put it is something which I've just been accustomed to writing. If you think this means I have been putting on false airs, then you've just proved that there are still people who judge others for one insignificant factor. I've consistently been reminded that my arguments need more detail and explanation, and since I think it's important I've provided that.

You also said:

I can't base your intelligence on this one thing

then immediately said in the next paragraph:

who writes in the same way as you in an attempt to fake intelligence.

I'm getting a mixed message there.

Ahh no! I'm not trying to say you're faking intelligence. I'm saying I recently had an argument with someone who was trying to fake intelligence, and he did so by quoting directly from wikipedia and using uncommon fancy words for no other reason than to appear superior. I hope I didn't offend you. I'm just comparing your use of language to something which happened to me recently.

 

[Racecar1994]

All I see is a wall of fancy language and waffle which could probably be reduced to a couple of sentences, maybe a couple of paragraphs, of less fancy language.

I can't base your intelligence on this one thing, but I might be able to get a picture of your personality: Either you really use those words every day (maybe you're the Queen), or you're a ponce, or you for some reason decide to write essays on forums and just like essays.

I just had a conversation with another person born in 1994 (I'm judging THAT on your username) who writes in the same way as you in an attempt to fake intelligence.
Intelligence != Fancy English.
He was trying to be more 'posh' than me to 'win' the argument. This is what I berate others on the most - putting on a false sense of superiority when it's unnecessary.

I'm not trying to be posh with what I write, I'm writing to explain a point. A point like the one I'm trying to make is one that needs detail so that people can fully understand. 'Fancy language' as you put it is something which I've just been accustomed to writing. If you think this means I have been putting on false airs, then you've just proved that there are still people who judge others for one insignificant factor. I've consistently been reminded that my arguments need more detail and explanation, and since I think it's important I've provided that.

You also said:

I can't base your intelligence on this one thing

then immediately said in the next paragraph:

who writes in the same way as you in an attempt to fake intelligence.

I'm getting a mixed message there.

Ahh no! I'm not trying to say you're faking intelligence. I'm saying I recently had an argument with someone who was trying to fake intelligence, and he did so by quoting directly from wikipedia and using uncommon fancy words for no other reason than to appear superior. I hope I didn't offend you. I'm just comparing your use of language to something which happened to me recently.

It's hard not to be offended when that's what I'm compared with. If you didn't intend to give off that impression, that's unfortunate, but it's happened because of your example and how you say he tried to 'fake intelligence'.

 

[pyrrhic victory]

Exactly what it says on the tin...

TV Tropes? (Parenthesis indicating Don't Explain The Joke, taking this entire comment's meta qualities Up To Eleven when you analyze the fact that this statement is also in parenthesis... I'm too lazy to make an account there, okay?)

ok less text maybe ill read the whole damn thing. welcome to the internet.

Rather pointless to enter a thread and then not even hear out what the OP has to say, isn't it? (Intentionally hypocritical here, as always, since it's also rather pointless to reply to a thread and not carry on the conversation... especially when the thread is sort of old.)

...I put quite a lot of work into developing my argument.

The problem with developing an argument for a thread starter is that, albeit being comprehensive in this instance, you aren't really addressing anyone in particular, which often results in the conversation ironically devolving into exactly what was being scrutinized originally.

Also, I have realized, after writing what is italicized, that I am reviving this thread. I've written so many things and then never published them, why let that cycle continue? (The irony here being that I normally find old threads when other old threads are revived, continuing a cycle so to speak.) But I believe what is written in italics should be pointed out; that could probably be better achieved creating a new thread, but then the conversation's meta attributes would become Beyond The Impossible.

I was going to put the references to TV Tropes in bold tags, but every time I do so I am reminded of 4chan. That should be a self-explanatory defense. I was also going to quote Yahtzee about how this is my first post in a while but at this point it would be an Overly Long Gag. I like using the word also a lot, but I seemed to tone that down in this post.

I was bored, okay? When that happens, I'm random. kthx

 

[Racecar1994]

The problem with developing an argument for a thread starter is that, albeit being comprehensive in this instance, you aren't really addressing anyone in particular, which often results in the conversation ironically devolving into exactly what was being scrutinized originally.

In many ways, yes you are right. Since this is an argument between people I don't know, I'll unfortunately end up subjectively generalising the other person until I know more about them - as they may do for me. This was an incredibly difficult topic to debate, since it's next to impossible to remain completely objective - especially if you do not know the people you're adressing personally.

However, the reason I posted this on the forum is to express an opinion and defend it - to share it and debate with people, in the hopes that it will cause them to consider another point of view. In some cases, it might have. As is evident, using this thread to emphasise the point is a pointless task. If, however, at least one person has looked upon my argument, and the arguments of others, and feels they understand these views with much more clarity, then I believe it has had an effect.

I definitely agree with you, though. The thread itself seems to have run out of steam - and I don't think personally that that's a bad thing. As you said, posting it on a forum was kind of redundant. On the other hand, I feel that reviving the thread would just lead to the same things being repeated. Then, there really would be no point.

I simply wanted to be heard. I'm also prepared to listen.