Ask Lemmy

Admitting you don't know everything is smart.

Continuing to still think you do know everything when you don't is when you're dumb by default.

Any position I hold is toppled over with the slightest argument unless I have very recently done a ton of research on the topic. I have zero ability to recall whatever evidence I used to come to a conclusion. It's incredibly frustrating because I do try to be informed about things but I just can't defend anything at the pace of a normal conversation.

Because others have gone out if their way not to be reliant on me specifically.

People never let me plan things, people treat me like a child, people always ask other to double check only my work, etc...

The worst thing is its a positive feed back loop. People think you're dumb and don't give you any opportunities, less opportunities means less experience, less experience means you appear less competent, being less competent makes people believe you're dumb.

Not really an answer to your question, just wanted to say intelligence isn't a one-dimensional thing. You can practically be a master on any one field but lack basic abilities in accomplishing what other people do every day. Or the other way around, you're not particularly good at one thing that's commonly attributed to intelligence, like chess or maths, but be highly intelligent or skilled in other things. And for me that includes social intelligence, being able to remember a lot of stuff, being handy or having a grasp for music, or anything. I think I'm alright in various things. But I regularly observe people being very good at something. Like scientists and I can barely read what the math even does. Or the lady at the bakery who remembers things about the personal lives of like >200 grandmas and which kind of bread they buy every week. In turn, I know like a 200 facts about Linux networking. But I couldn't do what she does, even if I tried.

Oh you think you're smart? Name every chess move

Intelligence is not easily quantifiable (dont you dare get me started on IQ) so its pointless to worry about how you stack up in one area. Ive met a genius nurse who cant spell restaurant without spell check. I know engineers who cant visualize a 2D drawing in to 3D space. I think im pretty smart, lots of conceptual thinking comes naturally to me but I hate chess. It doesnt make sense to me. I suggest thinking about what you are good at, rather than what you're not.

I know I'm not smart because I seem to have trouble retaining and/or recalling information. I'll understand the concepts then, but fuck me if I try to recall it months later. Also I remember things wrong, my partner (who has an excellent memory) calls me out on it all the time.

There are different kinds of smart. A person can be quick and creative at something (math, mechanics, music, marketing ...), and less so at everything else.

If the something is -complicated-, then a lot of learning is needed, and a good qualified teacher will help you sort out what is really important to know. Chess is complicated, and you need to learn basic strategies of how to move and not get eaten alive. There are some books that can help with that. But a human teacher can get you there a lot faster. If you're really motivated but you're not remembering enough? it may not be your 'something' !

Believing that you are smart, is the first sign of not being it. Even the smartest people will admit that they are mostly good at maybe a few areas, and at best average at everything else.

Structurally I know how things should work, but sometimes trying to program it tho...

I have been always terrible in maths, and this deficit represent imho a major obstacle in getting a decent job these days.

Adding on to what many have already said to give it a name: multiple intelligences

There are many types of cognition. I don't feel I know much more than how pieces move but certainly I look at the board and possibilities. Some of it is spacial modeling and some is a sort of logical progression. That being said people that have particular chess gambits memorized. well that is just memorization. There is also talent and such to consider. That being said when you personally know somone who is good at some particular thing. Its sensible to follow their lead. I know folks who I would take their medical advice above others and others where I trust their economic viewpoints and others for their scientific.

I was told smarter people are more likely to be cursed with things that count as mental illness.

I suck at maths or anything that has to do with numbers. But besides that, so many do say I’m intelligent. Though tbh, I’m far from it lol, there’s so much I need to learn about and the list just keeps building up so I guess it ain’t a bad thing after all. It’s just I’m always willing to open my eyes to new things.

There are very different kinds of "smartness". The currently favored (by most modern societies) kind weighs logical and structured thinking very heavily, that doesnt mean someone "isnt smart" if they dont possess those qualities. Also, chess does not even rely on the commonly referred to "smartness" that much. The most important aspects are long term memory ( for remembering situations from games and acting accordingly)and thousands of hours of practice.

I also know how chess pieces move, other than the rare en passant, but will lose to anyone willing to challenge me and I don't think I could get much better than mediocre with any amount of practice. However, I got full marks on a Mensa IQ test so I'd say I'm intellingent in a way but with my mild autism, likely ADHD and lack of practical skills, it's hard to tell. I have done lots of stupid decisions IRL, often repeatedly.

Would I say I'm "smart"? Depends. Intelligent, probably. Wise, hell no.

[off topic?]

The book 'Starship Troopers' is a lot different from the movie.

In the book the Bugs have space ships and other tech, so it's obvious that their leadership in intelligent. The question is whether the soldiers in the field are thinking for themselves or just genetically programmed to fight.

The narrator opines that if the Bug can kill you, that makes it smarter than you.