This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How do smart people "find their level" in conversation?
I am interested in identifying how smart people (gifted/exceptional or whatever word we’re using this week) people recognize each other.
I have observed that they can identify each other relatively quickly, and even broadly determine where they sit relative to each other while average or “less smart” people can usually identify that they are dealing with “smart” people but not necessarily the extent to which they are smart.
Some things I have observed that are “tells” of being “quicker”:
1. A willingness to leave the conversational basics behind and explore deeper into the subject (and if the person they are conversing with does not follow, drop back to the level the other can cope with).
2. Anchoring - taking the current topic of conversation and looking for a frame of reference they are already familiar with to understand it better.
3. Quips and parallel commentary - fleeting comments that are not meant to derail the main thrust of the conversation.
Any other keys you have observed in your experience?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Ratul Banthia
Debra Smith 200+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Gisela McKay 30+
I still suspect it is more than that, though, because I have been able to pick up on it on IRC, which is a purely text-based chat medium, and even during seemingly ordinary conversations.
Edit: Actually now that I think about this some more, that twinkle is usually at the moment of realization - meaning something has given it away before that point, no?
Ratul Banthia
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
Ratul Banthia
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
Conrad Green
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
Your description of autism doesn't match my understanding of that diagnosis. It sounds like you are a highly sensitive person, which in my opinion is a gift that sadly tends to work against people in this culture at this time. Many people learn to cope with these experiences by trying to inhibit the experience of emotion which we do by tensing various muscle groups and diminishing our breathing. (A build up of tension commonly leads to inappropriate laughter in highly emotional situation.)
The concept of "emotional intelligence" doesn't make sense to me because the emotions are so different from cognition. "Sensitivity" and "Openness" are much clearer terms in my opinion. There is a parallel to this discussion in that people who are more sensitive emotionally often have a hard time being understood by those with normal sensitivity.
In this mass culture that puts pressure on pre-adolescents to "fit in," we desperately need who see things differently. I appreciate your input.
Conrad Green
Jason Hinchliffe
Although I understand the desire of the highly intelligent to be able to explore complex issues, and I too am compelled this way, our strengths are varied enough, that just because two people both have exceptional skills, certainly does not mean they will mesh well, or welcome each others input or company.
The concept of a "twinkle and a smile" to me seems more like an acknowledgment that both are exceedingly familiar with the interior of a high school locker than mutual membership in some special club.
However, in response to Bob, I do see how in children this could be relevant, as they tend to be far more overt and their curiosity could be visually apparent.
Debra Smith 200+
Gisela McKay 30+
For instance, I was never stuck in a locker, I was actually the cheerleading captain, and no, I never had anyone stuck in a locker. I was mean to someone who didn't deserve it once, in grade 8, and I still feel badly about that - I fundamentally don't understand why people derive pleasure from random cruelty, it's just not in my wiring, apparently. (I do understand revenge, though. I can be 'smitey'.)
That aside, I am sitting here experiencing a fair amount of pain helping someone with something that (as far as I am concerned) should have taken 2 minutes to do, but instead I am typing away on my computer while she attempts to figure out something painfully basic.
So yes, I prefer the company of smart people, especially in the context of work.
Jason Hinchliffe
The random cruelty you speak of the the partitioning of alpha's and beta's. First the groups divide in their separate cliques of relative social rank, and then subdivide within themselves. It's typical behaviour as we're not nearly as far above monkeys as we'd like to believe. (Just watch the mating habits of Baboons and then go to your local disco...staggering I tell you).
I guess my point is, that idiot you are helping right now, might absolutely OWN you at something else, and then sit there thinking "gosh, why can't this moron figure this out". So she failed to pass your judgement for what should qualify as intelligent. I'd probably fail pretty badly at a lot of things too. However, there are areas where few people in this WORLD (statistically speaking) are anywhere near me.
That said, some people are just all around slow, however, that does not make them valueless, and frequently, I find "intelligent" poeple, so terribly overcomplicate issues (like how to identify eachother) that they miss what is more obvious and important. That strong communication on any level can yield incredible wisdom and insight, because we all have lives full of experience.
That's not to say you shouldn't prefer the company of "smart" people, however, I would question what you define as "smart". I think a better term might be "compatibly intelligent". I know many very smart people I competely loathe, and many average people whose company I delight in.
Alyson Irvin
Its just a puzzle. Like all puzzles. "How can I frame this to this persons thinking style and ability?" I dont get annoyed by it, I just get challenged by it. People who are less intelligent who sense frustration on the part of the more intelligent person, (or more skilled person if its not a matter of intelligence) shut down. Their anxiety level can rise and make them even more incapable of learning what you need them to know.
Be of good cheer, take it as a challenge, a puzzle to be solved and enjoy it. It will make it easier for you, and the person in question.
Gisela McKay 30+
I suspect your definition of 'average' may indeed be 'above average, but less than mine' (on a pure numeric IQ basis) - i.e. not actually average.
I've observed that there is a point at which you can tell that if the person you are dealing with isn't understanding what you are saying, you simply need to change the frame of reference or make the right analogy for all the pieces to fall into place, versus repeating yourself, slower. Or, they can articulate why what you are saying isn't connecting or at least the point of contention/break-down.
As I get older and more crotchety, I find myself actually experiencing physical pain in having to repeat myself for a third time or even just while dealing with a lack of willingness to try.
(And I am a firm believer in multiple intelligences, so I agree that people may have areas of strengths and weakness. But having spent a couple of weeks with this particular person, it is highly unlikely that there is an area that she would dominate.)
Gisela McKay 30+
If I didn't have other more important, and frankly far more interesting things to do, I might agree with you. But I do. And, unfortunately, I am apparently completely transparent when irritated (OK, completely transparent all the time).
I'm a big proponent of streamlining things. I initially asked the question because I am really good at identifying who will and who will not 'work' in my sphere and am interested in the 'tells'. It usually happens so fast that slowing it down to analyze what the keys are seemed interesting to me.
Edit: I am fully aware that both "more important" and "more interesting" are judgments I am making based on my interests and priorities. I did, however, promise to help someone with something, erroneously thinking it would take x-amount of time, not 3x.
Alyson Irvin
Best of luck to you and your trainee.
Ratul Banthia
Apologies for the late reply, was quiet busy with work n formalizing on a new job that I would be taking up from September. I understand the sentiment expressed in your reply but please see my original comment in the context of the discussion topic. I guess you overunderstood the point I was making. My comment was not about how I would segregate people, judge them on the basis of my own concept of 'smart' and cherry-pick them n decide whether to converse with them or not. Who am I in the first place to do anything like that? In my opinion, smartness/ intelligence has nothing to do when it comes to having great conversations at a personal level coz the best personal conversations I've had have used the least amount of words..My comment is only limited to the context of work and to get things done especially in situations that require some quick thinking and fast actions. There are some people who just understand and act fast and identifying them is very important in fire-fighting situations. It's not about good/bad/'my-type' or 'not-my type', it's just about arresting the need of the hour!
Hoping we agree on some of these points now:) Beyond all this, how's life n everything else?