I noticed this correlation as a young woman when I started working with executive scientists. I thought they would be brilliant at maths and science but monosyllabic in language but they were often, in fact, articulate, bilingual and outstanding writers too. I assumed from then on that highly intelligent people were just good at everything and it seems that was a fair observation!
A lot of "funny and hot" with men is self confidence. I've often found people who are called "smart" are just fast talkers and smooth with it. As for "good at everything" when it comes to school that's very rare in my experience, maybe 3 people in my A level group of 40.
Many of the "Smart, funny and hot" people switch to humanities which largely involves regurgitation or applying a learned set of rules, ask them to solve a problem or fix anything and they are clueless.
Of course "Better looking people get on better with other people at school" - Yes, due to sex and not intelligence.
Dear Ed! So I have the beauty, not dumb but I am not an agreeable person. What I mean is, I like to clean closet as Americans would say. I am not risk averse and often get rejected in larger gatherings. Right now, I just mention ‘the fake virus’ and everybody freaks out. I mean Covid and injections. And I couldn’t care less for being rejected. And as a kid I was not liked at all. My trouble is that I always saw through social conformity. Or I only started feeling ok or ‘normal’ once I studied engineering. Suddenly I was surrounded with lots of disagreeable people.
Clearly didn't had it all. But seems to have settled down as a horse rancher.
Intelligence may be a blessing or a curse - depending on the support and accept from your culture/etnic group and/or culture. - Interesting, I think, section about the alleged super-genius Christopher Langan vs. Bob Oppenheimer:
"In comparing the lack of academic and life success of Langan to the successes of Robert Oppenheimer, journalist Malcolm Gladwell, in his 2008 book Outliers, points to the background and social skills of the two men. Oppenheimer was raised in a wealthy cosmopolitan neighborhood in Manhattan. His father was a successful businessman and his mother was an artist, he was educated at the Ethical Culture School and summered in Europe, and studied at Harvard University and subsequently started a PhD at Cambridge University. Gladwell points to an illustrating example: when Oppenheimer tried to poison his tutor at Cambridge, he used his social savvy and his parents used their influence to have Oppenheimer merely sent for psychiatric help without any criminal or academic consequences; in contrast, when Langan's mother missed a deadline for financial aid, Langan lost his scholarship and when Langan tried to convince college administration at Reed College to switch a class to a later time (owing to a broken down car) his request was denied. Langan grew up in poverty and had an unsettled early life filled with abuse, which created a resentment of authority which Gladwell reported Langan still carried during his interview decades after his academic hardships. He had had little or no guidance from his parents or his teachers, and never developed the social skills needed to cope with and overcome his challenges.[7]: 108–110 "
GFP is nonsense. It doesn't exist. Emil did a post on it recently. It explains very little as a factor. How can something that is entirely dependant on the circumstance, period of history and collective genes of a people exist? It doesn't You can compare reaction times through eras but not personalities. A man with a higher IQ is always more intelligent regardless. A man with 'GFP' only is socially skilled dependent on culture, genetic similarity, history, political belief and so in in one certain time. There is no reaction time for personality. It is entirely nonsense.
When I first moved to Hong Kong 30 years ago I experienced cogdis seeing garbage collectors wearing spectacles. Cantonese more prone to myopia. Trash guys turned out not to be Proust aficionados.
Yes, this is quite an interesting article!
I noticed this correlation as a young woman when I started working with executive scientists. I thought they would be brilliant at maths and science but monosyllabic in language but they were often, in fact, articulate, bilingual and outstanding writers too. I assumed from then on that highly intelligent people were just good at everything and it seems that was a fair observation!
You have that. A lot. But also lots of scientists are kind of observers or they don’t talk much. And seriously if their IQ is very high, no wonder.
A lot of "funny and hot" with men is self confidence. I've often found people who are called "smart" are just fast talkers and smooth with it. As for "good at everything" when it comes to school that's very rare in my experience, maybe 3 people in my A level group of 40.
Many of the "Smart, funny and hot" people switch to humanities which largely involves regurgitation or applying a learned set of rules, ask them to solve a problem or fix anything and they are clueless.
Of course "Better looking people get on better with other people at school" - Yes, due to sex and not intelligence.
Dear Ed! So I have the beauty, not dumb but I am not an agreeable person. What I mean is, I like to clean closet as Americans would say. I am not risk averse and often get rejected in larger gatherings. Right now, I just mention ‘the fake virus’ and everybody freaks out. I mean Covid and injections. And I couldn’t care less for being rejected. And as a kid I was not liked at all. My trouble is that I always saw through social conformity. Or I only started feeling ok or ‘normal’ once I studied engineering. Suddenly I was surrounded with lots of disagreeable people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
Clearly didn't had it all. But seems to have settled down as a horse rancher.
Intelligence may be a blessing or a curse - depending on the support and accept from your culture/etnic group and/or culture. - Interesting, I think, section about the alleged super-genius Christopher Langan vs. Bob Oppenheimer:
"In comparing the lack of academic and life success of Langan to the successes of Robert Oppenheimer, journalist Malcolm Gladwell, in his 2008 book Outliers, points to the background and social skills of the two men. Oppenheimer was raised in a wealthy cosmopolitan neighborhood in Manhattan. His father was a successful businessman and his mother was an artist, he was educated at the Ethical Culture School and summered in Europe, and studied at Harvard University and subsequently started a PhD at Cambridge University. Gladwell points to an illustrating example: when Oppenheimer tried to poison his tutor at Cambridge, he used his social savvy and his parents used their influence to have Oppenheimer merely sent for psychiatric help without any criminal or academic consequences; in contrast, when Langan's mother missed a deadline for financial aid, Langan lost his scholarship and when Langan tried to convince college administration at Reed College to switch a class to a later time (owing to a broken down car) his request was denied. Langan grew up in poverty and had an unsettled early life filled with abuse, which created a resentment of authority which Gladwell reported Langan still carried during his interview decades after his academic hardships. He had had little or no guidance from his parents or his teachers, and never developed the social skills needed to cope with and overcome his challenges.[7]: 108–110 "
I would suggest you listen to ‘Oppenheimer’ on Freedimain by Stefan Molyneux. Or possibly even BITCHUTE. Oppenheimer was a horrible man.
GFP is nonsense. It doesn't exist. Emil did a post on it recently. It explains very little as a factor. How can something that is entirely dependant on the circumstance, period of history and collective genes of a people exist? It doesn't You can compare reaction times through eras but not personalities. A man with a higher IQ is always more intelligent regardless. A man with 'GFP' only is socially skilled dependent on culture, genetic similarity, history, political belief and so in in one certain time. There is no reaction time for personality. It is entirely nonsense.
What about the association with [perceived] intelligence of spectacle wearers? (Reads a lots books? Must know a lot?) Yet 'fit'? not so much.
When I first moved to Hong Kong 30 years ago I experienced cogdis seeing garbage collectors wearing spectacles. Cantonese more prone to myopia. Trash guys turned out not to be Proust aficionados.