|
|
Post by msdemos on Oct 20, 2019 13:46:50 GMT
 SAVE FERRIS
|
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Oct 20, 2019 13:54:40 GMT
Smarter and better looking than most.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Oct 20, 2019 14:10:35 GMT
Catman is perhaps smarter than most, but not as smart he thinks he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 20, 2019 17:09:21 GMT
below average
|
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Oct 20, 2019 20:38:52 GMT
Smarter than the average bear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 20, 2019 21:34:53 GMT
Its true my intelligence level is below average.
|
|
|
|
Post by divtal on Oct 20, 2019 21:40:23 GMT
Above average, but exceptionally humble about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 20, 2019 21:56:55 GMT
Its true my intelligence level is below average. But you talents that make up for it? I lack both talent and intelligence
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 20, 2019 22:55:14 GMT
What a question.
Howard Garner's Multiple Intelligence
I do best with the verbal-linguistic intelligence. Words are my friend. Words make me soar.
I think I would also be pretty high on the logical-mathematical intelligence scale. In high school, I aced every math course, including trig and calculus, which I loved. Though I have zero aptitude for something like computer programming. Computers make me nervous.
I think I have a moderate degree on the musical intelligence scale. No biggie for me.
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is without a doubt my lowest ability. I have no hand-eye coordination and can't throw a baseball for shit.
Spacial-Visual intelligence is the most interesting of Gardner's MI's. — interpretation and creation of visual images, pictorial imagination and expression - (this is fascinating) Maybe I have some of that. But if I do, it hasn't been tapped into. I don't have any sense of direction, however, no awareness of where I am, and that has always given me grief. I have known myself to get all turned around standing in my bathroom. It is pretty bad.
Interpersonal intelligence would be my second highest score. I am a devout armchair psychologist and on the Myers-Briggs scale, I scored a 17/20 on the perceiving-judging dimension. Perception comes naturally to me. And also, I can't make a judgment call to save my life. I am not a decision maker. I have always believed that everybody's personal interpretation of whatever is being looked at is correct. Nobody's point of view is ever really wrong. And as I do poorly with judgment, I thought it was best to decline selecting one of the choices. In some ways, I am very intelligent, and in some ways I am exceedingly stupid. I think I am an airhead. So there you go.
Intrapersonal intelligence - Yeah, I got that one. I got that one in spades. Maybe I got too much of that. Shit.
There is no scale for common sense-street smarts, however, and I think Gardner missed the ball on that one. If there was one for that dimension of intelligence, I would lay a bomb. I got nothing.
I see Gardner added two more to his original seven.
8. Naturalist intelligence (ability to recognize and categorize plants, animals and other objects in nature)- I have very little of this, sadly.
9. Existential intelligence (sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence such as, What is the meaning of life? Why do we die? How did we get here? - This one is interesting to me, but I don't know how legitimate it is as a measure of intelligence. I have some degree of this, but then I think that almost everybody does. This one is more like - how deep are you? - And everybody has some degree of "existential" depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 20, 2019 23:28:48 GMT
What a question. Howard Garner's Multiple Intelligence
I do best with the verbal-linguistic intelligence. Words are my friend. Words make me soar. I think I would also be pretty high on the logical-mathematical intelligence scale. In high school, I aced every math course, including trig and calculus, which I loved. Though I have zero aptitude for something like computer programming. Computers make me nervous. I think I have a moderate degree on the musical intelligence scale. No biggie for me. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is without a doubt my lowest ability. I have no hand-eye coordination and can't throw a baseball for shit. Spacial-Visual intelligence is the most interesting of Gardner's MI's. — interpretation and creation of visual images, pictorial imagination and expression - (this is fascinating) Maybe I have some of that. But if I do, it hasn't been tapped into. I don't have an sense of direction, however, no awareness of where I am, and that has always given me grief. Interpersonal intelligence would be my second highest score. I am a devout armchair psychologist and on the Myers-Briggs scale, I scored a 17/20 on the perceiving-judging dimension. Perception comes naturally to me. And also, I can't make a judgment call to save my life. I am not a decision maker. I have always believed that everybody's personal interpretation of whatever is being looked at is correct. Nobody's point of view is ever really wrong. Intrapersonal intelligence - Yeah, I got that one. I got that one in spades. Maybe I got too much of that. Shit. There is no scale for common sense-street smarts, however, and I think Gardner missed the ball on that one. If there was one for that dimension of intelligence, I would lay a bomb. I got nothing. I see Gardner added two more to his original seven. 8. Naturalist intelligence (ability to recognize and categorize plants,
animals and other objects in nature)
- I have very little of this, really. 9. Existential intelligence (sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions
about human existence such as, What is the meaning of life? Why do we
die? How did we get here? - This one is interesting to me, but I don't know how valid it is as a measure of intelligence. I have some degree of this, but I think that most people do. This one is more like - how deep are you? - And everybody has some depth. Always knew you were a smarty pants Mr. Dirty. You would pass the abstract IQ reasoning tests that many employers ask potential employees to do today. I can't!
I was freakin' useless as math and can't even do fractions. I never really applied myself as best I could, but numbers make me dyslexic. Or lets not beat around the bush and try and hide what is a known fact. The reality is, this was me and why I failed:
Some people "get" math and some people don't. I can appreciate how numbers would make somebody feel scattered. However, being so comfortable with math can also, I think, correlate with something like social anxiety. If a person loves numbers, they might be equally inadequate with the social graces, which I definitely am. Well, Scarecrow really was kind of hard on himself, and in the end, he turned out to be the smartest one of the bunch. So, there you go, friend. 
|
|
Jokers_Wilde
Junior Member
@jokerswilde
Posts: 1,309
Likes: 688
|
Post by Jokers_Wilde on Oct 20, 2019 23:53:09 GMT
Back a few years ago, there was a show on CBC that had questions to test one's IQ.
I took the test, and I have a 124 IQ.
I remember one quiz on facebook I took, and it said I had a 180 IQ!
I'm smart, but I ain't THAT smart. 
Joker's Wilde
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 1:00:37 GMT
My IQ compared to my actions serve to prove I'm an intellectual underachiever.
|
|
|
|
Post by redhorizon on Oct 21, 2019 1:45:45 GMT
Average, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 21, 2019 2:43:32 GMT
My IQ compared to my actions serve to prove I'm an intellectual underachiever. That's a good way to put it. I bet a lot of people who hang out here are intellectual underachievers.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Oct 21, 2019 6:01:13 GMT
Above Average-ish
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 21, 2019 6:55:20 GMT
That's a good way to put it. I bet a lot of people who hang out here are intellectual underachievers. Or pseudo-intellectuals. Just wannabes. i do the think word intellectual itself can denote pretentiousness and the "wannabees". It can be offputting and sometimes even purposefully so, like the person who claims to be an "intellectual" maybe likes to see themselves on a higher plane than other people, and it's the opposite of being friendly. It's very snobby. And somebody whose intelligence was off the charts, like Carl Jung or Albert Einstein, I do not think they would have ever referred to themselves as intellectuals. They ere too busy being curious about the world around them. Intellectual is more a state of mind than anything, people who over-inflate themselves. I think as a group, college professors are the very worst offenders. If you have to read one of their essays, they are soooo hard to get through. Their writing is intentionally dense and obtuse and it does not make you want to like them. Oh, but do they take themselves seriously. No sense of humor, just boring blowhards. I just thought of the episode of "The Golden Girls", Dorothy's New Friend, Barbara Thorndyke, who is just as snobby and elitist as they come. Then she turns out to be anti-Jewish and Dorothy has her wake-up call and tells Barbara to go to hell. It's probably my favorite episode from Season 3. Did you see that episode, Toasted Cheese? But I don't think the poster above came across this way. (not that you said he did!) He seems pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Oct 21, 2019 7:56:30 GMT
Ill make this comment given what I see in the poll so far...
You can see people are likely overrating their own intelligence as playing the odds most in here will be somewhere around average, give or take (although it's possible some could truly be comfortably above average and some could be comfortably below average). but yet 70% (i.e. 12 out of the 17 votes so far (before I placed my vote on average)) are claiming 'above average'. hence, my point. NOTE: I know it's a small sample size and I guess it's technically possible for 70% of 17 people to have above average overall intelligence. but just playing the general odds, it's unlikely anywhere near 70% of people would have 'above average' overall intelligence. because if that was true, they would likely tweak things so that whatever measurement they are using, would have it so most people float around average.
I voted for 'average' (some seem to think 'average' is bad, but it's not. it's still decent enough when it comes to intelligence (although when it comes to movies, average would be more negative than positive for me)). but just speaking for myself... I suspect in some ways I might be a little above average and some ways possibly a bit below average, but OVERALL I don't see myself being much either way of average. the way I see it... most people will be floating somewhere around average (or not much either way of it). but every now and then you can just tell some people are quite intelligent while others come across a bit slower than most. one area I suspect I am average at best is retaining something someone rattles off(like hearing the words someone speaks), especially if they go on for any length of time and I am not really focused on it. I am better off reading it in text than if someone just says it as this way I can read and re-read it til it pounds it into my head a bit better. because some people can say something and the other person picks up on what's said quickly where as myself, depending on what it is, I might have to write it down etc.
but with that said... basically I think there is plenty of variations of intelligence. like some might be more math oriented, some might be more adapt at social skills etc etc. there is probably plenty of things one could look at and I suspect it's hard to measure someones all around intelligence level.
plus, it seems some affiliate intelligence with success as I don't necessarily think that someone with a higher level of intelligence will be very successful and someone who's fairly rich, does not necessarily mean they are really smart, especially if stuff was just handed down to them etc. because some stuff a average-ish range person might not be able to figure out on their own but once they learn a few things they can do well enough. but then there are some things you probably just have to be straight up smart, at least in some areas, to do well. or some people might not have a lot of drive/ambition to succeed and are happy enough once they reach a certain level of $. etc etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 21, 2019 11:01:28 GMT
i do the think word intellectual itself can denote pretentiousness and the "wannabees". It can be offputting and sometimes even purposefully so, like the person who claims to be an "intellectual" maybe likes to see themselves on a higher plane than other people, and it's the opposite of being friendly. It's very snobby. And somebody whose intelligence was off the charts, like Carl Jung or Albert Einstein, I do not think they would have ever referred to themselves as intellectuals. They ere too busy being curious about the world around them. Intellectual is more a state of mind than anything, people who over-inflate themselves. I think as a group, college professors are the very worst offenders. If you have to read one of their essays, they are soooo hard to get through. Their writing is intentionally dense and obtuse and it does not make you want to like them. Oh, but do they take themselves seriously. No sense of humor, just boring blowhards. I just thought of the episode of "The Golden Girls", Dorothy's New Friend, Barbara Thorndyke, who is just as snobby and elitist as they come. Then she turns out to be anti-Jewish and Dorothy has her wake-up call and tells Barbara to go to hell. It's probably my favorite episode from Season 3. Did you see that episode, Toasted Cheese? But I don't think the poster above came across this way. (not that you said he did!) He seems pretty cool. Yeah! These guys take themselves way too seriously, are busy trying to impress the other intellectual\academics around them, want approval and will often give themselves self-congratulatory pats on the back. Talking a lot of rhetoric jargon in an attempt to confuse others and want others to think they are smart, means are likely narcissistic too. What is it that they really know?
Would you consider Woody Allen an intellectual? He often parodies this milieu anyway, but he is certainly exceptionally intelligent. Well read too.
I haven't seen that episode of Golden Girls. I will check to see if it is on you tube.
Yes, They definitely do this. It's kind of a nasty trait. They are not usually likable people. I took a film class once, and the female prof was dissecting some classic movie, can't remember what movie, and I raised my hand and brought up a quote I had read from Federico Fellini about how some critics would tend to read stuff into his movies that he had never intended. I have to admit I was being confrontational when I said this as I did not like her to begin with and then she said "I do not like the phrase 'reading into it'... I pissed her off a little bit and maybe that was kind of reckless of me and not necessary, but there you go. I took a second class with her and it was a smaller class of maybe eight students and we all got to pick one film to write a final paper on and also watch the film in class. I picked the topic of male sexuality in movies after WW2, and the film I chose was "Heat" where I focused on Joe D'Alessandro. (A total bonus of having Sylvia Miles and Pat Ast on the scene! ) I got a "B+" on the paper and I'll never forget when she included in her comments that she did not enjoy having to look at a naked Joe D'Alessandro for 100 minutes. Well, the topic was male sexuality, so what did she expect? She okayed the topic. Besides that, he's not naked all that much in the movie. She was the uptight type for sure. No fun at all. In that first class, she said that the only two good American movies in the past fifteen years were "The Terminator" and "The Piano". Huh? The first movie is okay, but "The Piano" is tortuously bad. Yikes! Anyway, it was a really fun paper to do. And Joe really was the epitome of the objectification of male beauty. What do you think, Toasted Cheese? Do you find Joe attractive?  Woody Allen an intellectual? Oh, that question really makes a person think. I think he might be one of the few true intellectuals. In his comedies, anyway, he can absolutely get away with his intellectual stance because he is so self-deprecating and he does not come across as arrogant at all. And he is also deeply interested, even obsessed, in the "existential" aspects. And the point is he's not being phony here. I really do think these are obsessions with him and he ended up making movies to deal with these concerns, and he was able to pull this off exceptionally well. Extremely gifted man. Also, I think that if I had to pick one group that had higher than average intelligence it would be Jewish people. It's just their thing. They tend to be very smart people. Woody is extremely intelligent and his point of view is both pessimistic, but also extremely appealing and likable, even. Who would not find "Radio Days" to be a very likable movie? He's a true rarity. I checked and there are four clips on YouTube from the GG episode, and they're all called "Barbara, The Snob". It doesn't give the full episode, but it does a good job of capturing the gist of it, and there are several funny bits.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 21, 2019 15:34:26 GMT
I would say Exceptional is like genius level, right? So no need to brag or overstate. Above average is fair. But that's also taking into account that from personal experience I find so many people to be below average. Sad, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Oct 21, 2019 15:54:46 GMT
Other.
'Above exceptional'.
|
|
