GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I like to think about things for a little bit before I answer.
I also am that way. Being a slow study and all. I find through life that when one is young.
Communication goes on constantly and continuously like breathing air.
Like breathing air. One does not think too much when doing it.
Later on when one gets older. Communication has taught one that communication has consequences.
Like in that enjoyable post by enorbet I enjoyed reading. Thanks enorbet. I am a sci fi kind of
scooter tramp myself.
Anyhows. Because one has learned that communication has consequences. It makes one measure
and think before they say something as they age more through life.
Just something I noticed is all. By the way. Hardly anyone speaks English down here on the Border. So Intelligence/IQ/whatever won't get you a glass of water unless you say agua.
@enorbet, do you remember the name or author? It sounds really good.
Hi. After it popped into my head during reading of this thread I am now actively trying to find it to read it again. All I recounted was just in the first chapter and as I recall it only got better from there. At first I thought it might be Poul Anderson but I think subconsciously I was thinking of The War of the Wing Men which is in his future history Vin Rijn series, a superb series of deep thought, intricate organization and considerable humor.... but it was not this story. Then I thought Eric Frank Russell but if so I have yet to find this novel. I am certain of the timing though since it was from around 1957-1967 that I read every Sci Fi novel, magazine or story I laid eyes on. I will keep looking. It is a good story.
The world is full of "smart" people who can't communicate with others, and I am one of them.
Me too. Face to face communication is different from online communication and is more challenging IMO. You can't backspace or edit what you say, and impromptu speech from me can be awkward. I'll take some public speaking courses and see if that helps.
I am assuming that OP refers primarily to face-to-face verbal communications.
Within normal limits, intelligence refers to someone's native intellectual capability (that's my definition, not a technical one).
Communications is a skill-set, not some innate mysterious thing that some folks have and some don't. It can be broken up into discreet skills, such as batting, fielding, and base-running, which can be taught and honed separately.
Just as persons who are poor writers can learn to write better, persons who are poor at face-to-face verbal communications can learn to communicate better. It takes practice and it can be difficult, because it requires looking critically at one's own communications skills, but it can be done. I used to do teach it.
Indeed, in the course I used to teach on platform skills for instructors, we used to videotape (remember videotape?) students at the beginning of the class and, after they had had the chance to prepare a presentation in the light of the tremendous knowledge that was showered upon them, at the end. For even the least adept, it was a night-and-day difference.
This doesn't mean that everyone can be equally proficient, but anyone can get better at it. Going back to baseball, all the teaching in the world could not turn me into Brooks Robinson (or turn every person into a world-class orator or master interviewer), but I still was able to go from Little League klutz to adequate third baseman in an amateur softball league.
The most difficult aspect for most of us is learning how to listen, so that we hear what others are saying, rather than what we think or expect them to say, or, as most persons do, use the "listening time" to rehearse our rebuttal. Communications trainers commonly refer to that skill-set as "active listening," which means using particular behaviors, such as paraphrasing, open questions, and the like, in a purposeful way to discipline oneself to pay attention to others, so, when one replies, the response can be relevant.
If you dare to read a very good book that became a political hot-potato (and to discover what it actually says, versus what it was said to say ...), you might well enjoy the book: The Bell Curve.
It is actually a very good exploration of "what is this thing that we call 'intelligence?'" Also, "'intelligence' testing." (e.g. "If we don't know exactly what it is, how can we test for it, and what do the test-results actually mean?" Or: "Are we simply measuring the biases or preconceptions of the persons who designed the tests?")
"Come to think of it, that's a very good and interesting point."
Also ... and this is where the hot-potato reaction came from ... the demographic correlations that do exist, with regards to such measures. Simple logic tells us that demographics ought to be totally irrelevant when someone is seeking to test and/or measure 'how smart' someone is or isn't, but the correlation is obvious. Statistically, it is "a big fat correlation." And that implies that there must be a bias, or an unaccounted-for influence, or something, in what we are "testing" and in the (social, political, etc.) conclusions and official policies that we draw from it. The tests are not neutral. (There are also correlations to wealth, or lack thereof; to health, or lack thereof; to literacy, or lack thereof.) Really, a lot of problems, and with no obvious solutions. "Testing for intelligence" is a whole lot harder than we thought, and maybe, a whole lot less relevant than we thought.
The book was written before "No Child Left Behind" became the vogue in the USA, but it certainly would poke big holes in the official-policy reasoning that led up to this law being enacted. As they say, "be careful what you wish for." Or, that you test for.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 05-07-2015 at 07:20 AM.
Regarding testing, I used to work for a company that brought in a standard test for all employees. Nobody could work for the company in any position if they did not get a high enough score. This was a directive from the venture capitalists who bought the company. The net effect was that nearly all of the experienced people who worked or wanted to work for the company, could not get hired. Only 10 of people who took the test actually passed - even if they interviewed brilliantly and had plenty of relevant work experience - no hire. That company has been declining now for a few years and they only have graduates with no experience and nobody to gain experience from! The wage-bill has been reduced, but customers are all jumping to the next competitor.
As someone who interviews technical people form time to time - I don't believe in tests. I can tell by asking the right questions and checking references if someone is going to be able to do the job. If you know how to hire people then you should not need a test.
Regarding testing, I used to work for a company that brought in a standard test for all employees. Nobody could work for the company in any position if they did not get a high enough score. This was a directive from the venture capitalists who bought the company. The net effect was that nearly all of the experienced people who worked or wanted to work for the company, could not get hired. Only 10 of people who took the test actually passed - even if they interviewed brilliantly and had plenty of relevant work experience - no hire. That company has been declining now for a few years and they only have graduates with no experience and nobody to gain experience from! The wage-bill has been reduced, but customers are all jumping to the next competitor.
As someone who interviews technical people form time to time - I don't believe in tests. I can tell by asking the right questions and checking references if someone is going to be able to do the job. If you know how to hire people then you should not need a test.
There's always very many discussions for technical interview styles, questions, methodologies, and etc on LinkedIn discussion groups. Eventually you get tired of reiterating advice to young upstarts looking for assistance.
The world is full of "smart" people who can't communicate with others, and I am one of them.
Communication is a skill that will never perfectly described. You can't seize it, cannot understand or teach the skills of some people that excel in rhetoric and speach.
Oddly some of the smartest people I've ever met were quite difficult to talk to. They tend to either lack communication skills or maybe their minds are set toward different tasks.
Oddly some of the smartest people I've ever met were quite difficult to talk to. They tend to either lack communication skills or maybe their minds are set toward different tasks.
My theory is as follows. Society is very complex, this includes verbal and nonverbal communication. Smarter people tend to have done more studying rather than going out socially. Thus, smarter people tend to fill up their minds with non-social information, and not so much with social communication related information.
Assuming two people with equal mental abilities, the one that studied will have poorer communication skill but may be "smarter" than the one who was more socially oriented. I would not say that the socially oriented person is not as smart, but rather that they have different abilities. Kinda like an RPG or roguelike. You distribute your attribute points as you level up. Not everyone has the same number of starting points tho.
I tend to refer to roguelike games as a model of life They pretty much are. In fact, I think I will start a new religion based on the roguelike game, the key premise being that life is like playing a roguelike. Your dice are rolled at random for initial stats, you level up and distribute attribute points, you die a miserable death, you start all over
I would counter that truly smart people are smart both socially and academically and that only having one area of smartness suggests that they are not so smart. It stands to reason that say two people who have high IQs or are academically gifted, genii if you will - but one is socially/communicationally gifted too, that one is smarter than the other.
So while I agree that you can have a smart non-social person and a smart social person, you can have someone who is smart in both respects and therefore genuinely smarter!
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.