Are you smarter than the average Apolytoner?

[muxec]

The LOLiest thread at the offtopic, really

[Flubber]

I can't vote accurately as I cannot accurately judge how smart other apolytoners are. Common sense would dictate that people that choose to type on a computer would be more likely to be the more studious and literate types and therefore would do better in school and on standardized tests than the average population. Heck, a proportion of the average poulation is unable to read and write so we know that poly, at the very least, is made up of from the subset of people that can read and write . . . although some poster's habit of totally missing the point of contrary posts makes one question their reading skills.

The question of course is what you define as a measure of "smart". I believe that a true evaluation would consider many things that I break down into 3 elements

Book smarts

This is what most standardized testing is all about. The group here knows all about these so further comment in unnecessary.

Social smarts

If you have no friends or significant other and this fact makes you unhappy, can you really be all that "smart"? Having the ability to navigate relationships is, to me, a very important skill .

The person with the "A+" average and a lonely miserable existence is in many ways much less "smart" than the "A-" or "B+" student that is happy with a wide circle of friends. How smart are you really if you cannot master basic social skills ? The most arrogant would say that that they will not "hide" their intelligence in order to be more popular but the smartest manage to be both intelligent and somewhat popular.


Practical smarts

These are again hard to measure but many people have great practical skills. Can you fix things, assemble toys and furniture according to the "easy-to-follow" instructions" or handle the million little jobs that life may send your way?

Do you do stupid things like drink and drive or have unprotected sex with multiple partners ? Do you handle your finances well? Do you get sucked in by pranks? Are you so involved with theoretical physics or philosophy that you are oblivious to the world or let your health suffer ?and on and on . . . .

------------------------------------


In assessing myself, I know that I have great practical smarts. . . I handle all sorts of daily matters with ease. In the social smarts area, I had a rocky time for a while in elementary school ( could not avoid getting bullied a little until I figured things out) but always had lots of friends and went out with my first girlfriend at age 14. I am now very happily married and with a baby on the way and an excellent circle of friends and a great job. I like to think that I am pretty "smart" on these counts.

And for those of you that need an objective measure or think I raise the other issues because I do poorly on standardized testing . . . think again. My most recent test of this type was the GMAT. I scored in the 99th percentile. As this test is usually taken by college graduates who think they have a hope of making it into the MBA program, you are probably starting with a pretty "smart" subset.

So where do I rank? Ego and the way I have chosen to assess things would result in a very high ranking. But since I know too little about the comparison group AND others would likely dispute my assessment methodology, it is impossible to say with much accuracy.

Logic, ego and humilty conflict here but unless there is a generally accepted measure, any self-ranking somewhere near the top is pure bs. I therefore choose banana in the tradiition of apolyton.

As for the many that place themself at the very top, I only hope that your brilliance exceeds your arrogance.

[RGBVideo]

I think Lefty had a clue on internet IQ-test's... I just don't remember his almost a-year-old quote from them, however... But the point was, that all the internet IQ-test's are overrating their users, to gain more testers.

Less than 50th percentile. My intellect is dismal.

Is what I vote. Unfortunately, I didn't realize early enough that this poll is humorous.

Beat that, civ fans!

I started also playing Civilization I when I was 5 years old, and I wouldn't consider it extraordinary.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tuomerehu

I started also playing Civilization I when I was 5 years old, and I wouldn't consider it extraordinary.

It would have been extraordinary if I did it . . . I was born in 1968

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by BeBro
The funny thing is that some people seem to take this poll seriously....

Moursund wargaming principal # 3: never pass up an opportunity for any incremental intimidation or psycological advantage over a potential opponent.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I may not be smart, but shouldn't half of people be above the 50% precentile and the other half below? Is that not how the average of a gorup of people is worked out?

A lot of the below average intelligence posters aren't smart enough to work out how to vote in the poll.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MikeH


A lot of the below average intelligence posters aren't smart enough to work out how to vote in the poll.

nah-- we just all have bigger than average egos

[alva]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MikeH


A lot of the below average intelligence posters aren't smart enough to work out how to vote in the poll.

Yeah, and a lot of them get confused between being smarter than the average PERSON, versus being smarter than the average APOLYTONER.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Flubber
I can't vote accurately as I cannot accurately judge how smart other apolytoners are. Common sense would dictate that people that choose to type on a computer would be more likely to be the more studious and literate types and therefore would do better in school and on standardized tests than the average population. Heck, a proportion of the average poulation is unable to read and write so we know that poly, at the very least, is made up of from the subset of people that can read and write . . . although some poster's habit of totally missing the point of contrary posts makes one question their reading skills.

The question of course is what you define as a measure of "smart". I believe that a true evaluation would consider many things that I break down into 3 elements

Book smarts

This is what most standardized testing is all about. The group here knows all about these so further comment in unnecessary.

Social smarts

If you have no friends or significant other and this fact makes you unhappy, can you really be all that "smart"? Having the ability to navigate relationships is, to me, a very important skill .

The person with the "A+" average and a lonely miserable existence is in many ways much less "smart" than the "A-" or "B+" student that is happy with a wide circle of friends. How smart are you really if you cannot master basic social skills ? The most arrogant would say that that they will not "hide" their intelligence in order to be more popular but the smartest manage to be both intelligent and somewhat popular.


Practical smarts

These are again hard to measure but many people have great practical skills. Can you fix things, assemble toys and furniture according to the "easy-to-follow" instructions" or handle the million little jobs that life may send your way?

Do you do stupid things like drink and drive or have unprotected sex with multiple partners ? Do you handle your finances well? Do you get sucked in by pranks? Are you so involved with theoretical physics or philosophy that you are oblivious to the world or let your health suffer ?and on and on . . . .

------------------------------------


In assessing myself, I know that I have great practical smarts. . . I handle all sorts of daily matters with ease. In the social smarts area, I had a rocky time for a while in elementary school ( could not avoid getting bullied a little until I figured things out) but always had lots of friends and went out with my first girlfriend at age 14. I am now very happily married and with a baby on the way and an excellent circle of friends and a great job. I like to think that I am pretty "smart" on these counts.

And for those of you that need an objective measure or think I raise the other issues because I do poorly on standardized testing . . . think again. My most recent test of this type was the GMAT. I scored in the 99th percentile. As this test is usually taken by college graduates who think they have a hope of making it into the MBA program, you are probably starting with a pretty "smart" subset.

So where do I rank? Ego and the way I have chosen to assess things would result in a very high ranking. But since I know too little about the comparison group AND others would likely dispute my assessment methodology, it is impossible to say with much accuracy.

Logic, ego and humilty conflict here but unless there is a generally accepted measure, any self-ranking somewhere near the top is pure bs. I therefore choose banana in the tradiition of apolyton.

As for the many that place themself at the very top, I only hope that your brilliance exceeds your arrogance.

It's a tricky thing to get a handle on any psycholkogical quantity. And there are political overtones. So lots of people who want to cloud the issue definitionally. I think of "smart" as roughly meaning "puzzle-solving ability". BTW, I don't think of "smart" as "good". Nor do I think of it as including all talents. That's why I don't need a special definition for "social smartness". I'm willing to accept such a thing exists, is important, etc. But it is different from "smart" in the puzzle-solving sense.

Same deal with "kinesthetic smartness". Just call it athletic ability, already! Don't get so caught up in the wrangling over postive/negative connotations that one loses the opportunity to think insightfully about aspects of human psychology.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by GP


Yeah, and a lot of them get confused between being smarter than the average PERSON, versus being smarter than the average APOLYTONER.

Well it's a lot easier to be smarter than the average Apolytoner!

[TCO]

Originally posted by MikeH


Well it's a lot easier to be smarter than the average Apolytoner!

hee hee.

(It's actually harder. Civ attracts bright people.)

Now how about this as a debate. Compare the average intelligence of FFZonies, OTubies, and Counterpointers.

[MikeH]

The ones who come up with a definition of Intelligence that all the others agree on win.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GP


It's a tricky thing to get a handle on any psycholkogical quantity. And there are political overtones. So lots of people who want to cloud the issue definitionally. I think of "smart" as roughly meaning "puzzle-solving ability". BTW, I don't think of "smart" as "good". Nor do I think of it as including all talents. That's why I don't need a special definition for "social smartness". I'm willing to accept such a thing exists, is important, etc. But it is different from "smart" in the puzzle-solving sense.

How is exploring how "smart' is defined, clouding the issue? We agree that there are different types of "smart" so why is it wrong to think that a truly "smart" person would have abilities in multiple areas ?

I simply see problem solving , in the "book problem" sense, to be a very limited test of smartness. I believe that the truly smart person is one that can apply their intelligence not only to an abstract problem but the realities of life around them.

Originally posted by GP

Same deal with "kinesthetic smartness". Just call it athletic ability, already! Don't get so caught up in the wrangling over postive/negative connotations that one loses the opportunity to think insightfully about aspects of human psychology.

Was this paragraph aimed at my quoted passage ?

I did not use the term "kinesthic smartness"( nor would I) nor did I make any value judgements. I do not see athletic ability as being any sign of intelligence (an intelligent athlete will do better than a non-intelligent one with the same physical skills but the physical element is the overriding factor).

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MikeH
The ones who come up with a definition of Intelligence that all the others agree on win.

The very reason I stated the types of things I would look at as a measure.