Smart people vs. not smart people

[Sima]

How on daily life to divide easily people into high IQ/emphatic and low IQ/no empathy? What signs would you prescribe to each category? 

I need a list easily to use on everyday situations. 

 

At the moment i have only few shortcut signs.

 

Low IQ people:

*was aggressive more than once

*is not interested in people around them

 

High IQ people:

*straight, interested, scanning eye contact

*almost no aggression in the past

 

If you can share some ideas, would be nice!

[Will Torbald]

Maybe you'll realize there are no easy to use lists for the real world. Even high IQ people can be malevolent if they've been conditioned, and low IQ can be peaceful if well raised.

[Sima]

I am looking for a high IQ person, who maybe knows the signs. And I am talking about the majority in our nowadays society, not the exceptions. Like blacks with IQ 85 do the most crimes, and you cant have democracy if the population IQ is lower than 90.  Like if you go into a room full of people, how to spot the smart ones and the stupid ones fast?  

[Wuzzums]

I am looking for a high IQ person, who maybe knows the signs. And I am talking about the majority in our nowadays society, not the exceptions. Like blacks with IQ 85 do the most crimes, and you cant have democracy if the population IQ is lower than 90.  Like if you go into a room full of people, how to spot the smart ones and the stupid ones fast?  

 

If there was such a thing as accurately identifying quality people by their outwards traits we would all be living in an utopia.

Like the previous poster said, low IQ does not imply bad and high IQ does not imply good. These are 2 different categories. Are you looking for intelligent people? Or are you looking for good people? These two don't exactly go hand in hand. There's nothing more dangerous than a high IQ evil person and they are the most difficult to spot.

[M.2]

Here is something to rock your world:

I am from Mongolia, an East-Asian (as Mr.Molyneux says, high IQ region) country.
Despite being high-IQ, we are a pretty violent folk. I myself have been in quite a few fights myself (I have a confirmed IQ of above 130). In fact, there is something we ourselves call "Mongol Rage", which is when someone starts lashing out very  aggressively without notice.
On the other hand, we are a very very empathetic people, far more than Europeans are, much like the Japanese and the Koreans.
Also, like all East-Asians, we do not like eye-contact. Looking someone in the eye is considered very rude.
Democracy... well, not our thing. Even though on paper we are a democracy, the system is much more like a patriarchical oligarchy, which we are completely fine with.

Personally, I value intelligence very highly, but intelligent people are no longer necessarily whom I try to associate myself with. My friends are those people who I can call up at 3am, ask them to get a baseball bat, and have them at my back in 5 minutes, all without them asking a single question. Loyalty is the trait that is valued in Mongolia (by Mr.Trump too, clearly), because historically, the Mongol army never was mobilised. That meant that in the time of need, you couldn't care less whether your allies had the smarts, rather all that mattered was that they came.

With all due respect to the FDR community, IQ, in my opinion is a luxury to be discussing.

[Sima]

I have heard Stefan talking many times, that high IQ people usually have strong empathy, so I will not discuss it here. I am interested in high IQ people, because high IQ and low IQ when the difference is a standard deviation or more, don't understand each other.  And I would like to find more high IQ people to talk to, and its very useful in daily life to know what kind of person you are dealing with.

In the book "The science of evil" Appendix 2, are given the signs of zero empathy people, some of them my mother  has, my father not, but they got married because of unexpected pregnancy:

 

*uncontrollable anger (I called it aggressiveness)

*unstable relationships (like many short ones)

*substance abuse

*dieting

*excessive spending

*extreme mood swings

 

and so on...

Try to fit it to your family.

[DaVinci]

There has been a big focus from Stef on IQ, but I don't think IQ by itself is the most worthwhile thing to try to gauge when dealing with people. 

[Boss]

in·tel·li·gence

inˈteləjəns/

noun

 

1. 1.

   the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
   
    

Smart people tend to want to acquire knowledge. Not so smart people tend to not care. 

This is the only marker I use. Now, as far as figuring out who is applying knowledge and skills, You can look at their work. But that is subjective, so, I personally dont spend too much time on it. Most of my friends are entrepreneurs, but, Its probably because I am one myself. I do think entrepreneurship takes an incredible amount of acquiring and applying knowledge and skills(intelligence) but someone may feel otherwise.  

[Sima]

Ok, I agree with curiosity.

Also could add fast thinking, putting out a lot of ideas at once.

Somebody who hears what the other person is saying and manages to react properly.

Also ignorance looks like stupid people trait.

Moody people: disfunctional, not smart.

 

 

P.S. I am not aiming for people with IQ 130 or more. I just cant manage to keep straight face and be sincere with people of 100 and below, usually they find my ideas too shocking. I had couple entrepreneurs friends, they said it straight to me, that I was interesting to talk with. And 1 psychologist said, I had a talent to make a group of people to feel very cosy and friendly together. My goal is to sort fast stupid people and smart ones. Dysfunctional and normal ones as well. As someone says IQ is not important, but if I am about 115, I need people to talk above 100 and lower than 130, because higher I will not understand myself.

[M.2]

I think I see what you are looking for. Are you familiar with Mensa? Here is a link to their site: http://www.mensa.org/
They are a high-IQ international Society of over 100 000 people that organises social events for their members. They even test your IQ and hand you a certificate.

If you don't have high enough IQ to join, at least you may find some answers in their Research.

Hope this helps.

[Sima]

I think I see what you are looking for. Are you familiar with Mensa? Here is a link to their site: http://www.mensa.org/

They are a high-IQ international Society of over 100 000 people that organises social events for their members. They even test your IQ and hand you a certificate.

 

If you don't have high enough IQ to join, at least you may find some answers in their Research.

 

Hope this helps.

 

I am looking for signs to use in daily life, not to have to go to some meeting 2 times a year. I want to know if the the shop assistant or my future manager is just stupid, nuts or smart. Simple lists with simple things to check. Thats the idea.

[M.2]

I am looking for signs to use in daily life, not to have to go to some meeting 2 times a year. I want to know if the the shop assistant or my future manager is just stupid, nuts or smart. Simple lists with simple things to check. Thats the idea.

I did say they do Research. You might find your answer there. They surely have done one on the characteristics and traits of their members.

[Sima]

Moodiness Is the best trait of dysfunctional people. My neighbour is often moody and he screams hard at his crying toddlers like 3 times a day. I wish i could call social services, but then the neighbour might lie about my family to the same services. It is easy to understand who called, when we are the closest neighbours.

Ps I didnt found anything at Mensa website about traits, maybe somebody has a link.

[Sima]

I decided to stand by this trait as indicator:

Aggressiveness (including being impolite, ignorant, rude, snarky etc.)

Couldn't find any better.

[neeeel]

I decided to stand by this trait as indicator:

Aggressiveness (including being impolite, ignorant, rude, snarky etc.)

Couldn't find any better.

 

Ignorance isnt aggressiveness

 

Impoliteness and rudeness arent traits of low IQ. Apart from being pretty subjective ( as in, what is impolite and rude in one situation, or with one set of people, isnt impolite or rude in another), high IQ people can be impolite and rude, especially if the other person is being impolite or rude.

 

I dont think you will be able to find a simplified set of rules that will tell you if someone is high or low IQ or not

[RichardY]

I decided to stand by this trait as indicator:

Aggressiveness (including being impolite, ignorant, rude, snarky etc.)

Couldn't find any better.

You're not a rocket scientist!!!! That makes YOU! ignorant.

 

Maybe, instead of looking for traits that could have any number of causes. It may be better to ask questions instead. On a larger scale sure traits could be useful to look at, to ascertain a degree of intelligence, smarts or cunning; though that sounds to me more like livestock management.

[Sima]

The very bad people say, that they are good the most often. I think I just will go trust body language of others, it communicates 90% of information anyway.

And don't tell me that moodiness and aggressiveness are not dysfunctional low IQ people traits, because those who are the worst don't want to be recognized. The priests want the best for you, the teachers in public schools as well, abusers parents also.

The statement, that majority of people are good is made up by bad people so that they could abuse us more and you would run around naive and defenseless.

If someone doesnt want others to know the traits of bad people, the questions is why?

By the way I am already using the aggressiveness trait. Saw a moody women looking at me at the street , and few minutes after that she was shouting at the toddler next to her. It works!

 

Anyone have good ideas how to recognize dysfunctional and low IQ people fast, let me know!

[RichardY]

The very bad people say, that they are good the most often. I think I just will go trust body language of others, it communicates 90% of information anyway.

Really, where did you learn this?

 

And don't tell me that moodiness and aggressiveness are not dysfunctional low IQ people traits, because those who are the worst don't want to be recognized. The priests want the best for you, the teachers in public schools as well, abusers parents also.

Moodiness and Aggressiveness are low IQ traits. Happier?

 

If someone doesnt want others to know the traits of bad people, the questions is why?

Perhaps an interesting thought experiment, anyone care to elaborate.

[neeeel]

Moodiness and Aggressiveness are low IQ traits. Happier?

 

Op seems to be getting quite moody and aggressive

[RichardY]

Op seems to be getting quite moody and aggressive

I wouldn't say aggressive, though I really hate to say it, confirmation bias(Not a Psychologist). Nothing wrong with looking at traits, though shifts thinking to a more statistical approach and unless someone's an actuary or state official, perhaps not too useful imo. On a more personal level having a list of questions to ask might be better, unless they feel like saying "What are you my fucking Dr?". Resolving complex topics in just a few handfuls of posts seems ludicrous to me.

[Sima]

Try it if you don't believe me.

[neeeel]

Try it if you don't believe me.

 

Try what? 

[Quadrewple]

• See how they respond if you string together a very long and complex sentence (of paragraph length) - less intelligent people tend to tune out or not have much to say in response
• See how much slang they use
• See if they know a little bit about various current events
• See what their relationship is towards fun/knowledge and how much overlap exists between those two for them
• See how conforming they are to the zeitgeist of the mainstream media

 

I don't think I could reasonably gauge someone's IQ score based on these things, but I believe I can usually tell whether or not they are in the upper half or bottom half of intelligence.

[Caley McKibbin]

If there was such a thing as accurately identifying quality people by their outwards traits we would all be living in an utopia.

Like the previous poster said, low IQ does not imply bad and high IQ does not imply good. These are 2 different categories. Are you looking for intelligent people? Or are you looking for good people? These two don't exactly go hand in hand. There's nothing more dangerous than a high IQ evil person and they are the most difficult to spot.

No we wouldn't.  People that have a low estimate of their own ability impede accurate identification of that ability.  If a man can be put on the moon, a chunk of grey goo can be dissected.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

In general, if you are a good judge of character, you can tell the smart from the stupid instinctively.

 

If not, or you're unsure and really want a short and sweet check list, here are some observations;

 

Smart People

-Tend to look well-kept, without any bizarre smells.

-Tend to be eloquent in conversation, especially in subjects they are experienced/knowledgeable in.

-Tend to have good short and long term memories. Especially if you say, act, or appear in ways most people do not.

 

Dumb People

-Tend to look dirty, have strange smells (like drug or cigarette smoke), and appear to have reduced or no sense of self-awareness.

-Tend to stutter, tend to give brief and simple answers. Easily frustrated.

-Tend to forget things pretty easily. 

 

Mind you there are plenty of exceptions, therefore you will have to rely on instinct and past experience to really gauge someone's rough IQ range. However geniuses tend to stick out, in one way or another. If you simply want someone who's reliable and intelligent, these general trends will help but for spotting geniuses you really won't have to try very hard assuming you yourself are fairly intelligent.

 

Also remember that there are intelligent people who stink, look bad, become easily frustrated and forget things easily. However they never have all these things at once, and are often self-aware and behave the way they do on purpose. Forgetfulness is rarely a trait of intelligence but the ability to retain and quickly recall is.  

 

Of course few people remember things they are not interested in or feel they will not have much use for. Don't be surprised if even a genius forgets your long dissertation about the breeding patters of dung Beatles or how you can safely extract honey from honeycombs without wearing a beekeeper's suit.

 

Try experimenting/observing with people you know and see how it goes.

[themortalgod]

I'd disagree that being well kept is a marker for intelligence. Many of the most intelligent people I've ever met don't prioritize personal fashion, optimal cleanliness, or appearance at all. Where as many highly unintelligent individuals I've encountered have been extremely well-kept. Anecdotal, though, as I do not know of any studies in the matter. But to extend it a bit further, in general, far more women are well kept than men but we all know that women don't vastly outpace men in terms of IQ distribution. 

In my opinion the two best markers of intelligence are ability to recollect as you mentioned and also the ability to make logical leaps based on the intangible such associating causality. To give a great example from one of Stephen's recent shows those on the left tend to associate the government deporting illegals and breaking up families as the fault of the government as they are directly responsible for the action. Where as in reality the fault lies on the illegal who chose to break the law which lead to breaking up their own families. Unintelligent individuals really struggle to make the logical leap in order to associate the inception of an eventual reaction.

This happens repeatedly through society, another common example:  "I'm poor because minimum wage is too low" vs "I'm poor because I haven't ensured that my labour is valuable". Unintelligent people have no idea how the value of a wage is inferred where as intelligent individuals are able to trace the link within their minds between the wage and the value of the labour being purchased with that wage. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I'd disagree that being well kept is a marker for intelligence. Many of the most intelligent people I've ever met don't prioritize personal fashion, optimal cleanliness, or appearance at all. Where as many highly unintelligent individuals I've encountered have been extremely well-kept. Anecdotal, though, as I do not know of any studies in the matter. But to extend it a bit further, in general, far more women are well kept than men but we all know that women don't vastly outpace men in terms of IQ distribution. 

 

In my opinion the two best markers of intelligence are ability to recollect as you mentioned and also the ability to make logical leaps based on the intangible such associating causality. To give a great example from one of Stephen's recent shows those on the left tend to associate the government deporting illegals and breaking up families as the fault of the government as they are directly responsible for the action. Where as in reality the fault lies on the illegal who chose to break the law which lead to breaking up their own families. Unintelligent individuals really struggle to make the logical leap in order to associate the inception of an eventual reaction.

 

This happens repeatedly through society, another common example:  "I'm poor because minimum wage is too low" vs "I'm poor because I haven't ensured that my labour is valuable". Unintelligent people have no idea how the value of a wage is inferred where as intelligent individuals are able to trace the link within their minds between the wage and the value of the labour being purchased with that wage. 

 

Pragmatically speaking, you're right on mark.

 

I really met the "well-kept" part as to mean "clean", not necessarily fashionable or staring-at-a-portable-mirror vain, just not stinking of cheap-cigarettes-smelling wearing-pants-below-the-anus or hiding-under-a-hood-with-stoner-eyes trashy.

 

Of course, again anecdotal. But I think we can agree someone stinking of alcohol or drugs isn't the sharpest tool in the shed (assuming he wasn't plunged in a keg or dragged into a smoker's bar).

 

However it is worth pointing out only about half of men are smarter than most women, while the other half are generally dumber than most women (I.Q.-wise, which isn't necessarily wisdom but rather the horsepower often necessary to acquire wisdom). 

 

While hard to totally frame an IQ range (without experience), you could use "whether or not they have these bits of wisdom" as short-hand for reliable versus unreliable.

[themortalgod]

Pragmatically speaking, you're right on mark.

 

I really met the "well-kept" part as to mean "clean", not necessarily fashionable or staring-at-a-portable-mirror vain, just not stinking of cheap-cigarettes-smelling wearing-pants-below-the-anus or hiding-under-a-hood-with-stoner-eyes trashy.

 

Of course, again anecdotal. But I think we can agree someone stinking of alcohol or drugs isn't the sharpest tool in the shed (assuming he wasn't plunged in a keg or dragged into a smoker's bar).

 

However it is worth pointing out only about half of men are smarter than most women, while the other half are generally dumber than most women (I.Q.-wise, which isn't necessarily wisdom but rather the horsepower often necessary to acquire wisdom). 

 

While hard to totally frame an IQ range (without experience), you could use "whether or not they have these bits of wisdom" as short-hand for reliable versus unreliable.

 

Actually, in the contrary there are quite a few obsessive intellectuals out there who become so obsessed with their work that they forget to bathe or take care of their own hygiene. I'm pretty sure Einstein was guilty of this from time to time.

 

That said I would agree that addictive behaviour is often a marker for lower intelligence so things such as smokers or booze hounds do represent lack of intelligence. (Though, again, not absolute, there are countless high functioning intellectuals who were also prone to addictive behaviour. For example Ayn Rand was a walking chimney )

 

That statement about men vs women is accurate. I'd also theorize that something like 90% of women are more "well-kept" than the majority of men. (I, of course, have no actual data on this but just based on my own observations throughout life)

 

I also like to always try to remember than even IQ itself isn't a direct marker to define intelligence or lack there of either. It is an effective one and likely the best and simplest one that we currently have but it isn't absolute. To quote Einstein: "if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid"

 

There are many individuals who score excessively high on IQ tests but have effectively no ability to understand philosophy or SK. Meanwhile there are those who score low on IQ tests that understand philosophy reasonably well. 

 

An IQ test is really just a test measuring short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability and spatial recognition. The spectrum of human intelligence is wider than that. (Creativity, intuition, long term memory, empathy, ability to delay gratification, ability to observe, linguistics, time management, etc) It would be like evaluating the quality of an audio speaker by only how loud it is and ignoring other factors such as accuracy, bass, etc. IQ is certainly an effective marker but it paints a very incomplete picture when taken in isolation. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Actually, in the contrary there are quite a few obsessive intellectuals out there who become so obsessed with their work that they forget to bathe or take care of their own hygiene. I'm pretty sure Einstein was guilty of this from time to time.

 

That said I would agree that addictive behaviour is often a marker for lower intelligence so things such as smokers or booze hounds do represent lack of intelligence. (Though, again, not absolute, there are countless high functioning intellectuals who were also prone to addictive behaviour. For example Ayn Rand was a walking chimney )

 

That statement about men vs women is accurate. I'd also theorize that something like 90% of women are more "well-kept" than the majority of men. (I, of course, have no actual data on this but just based on my own observations throughout life)

 

I also like to always try to remember than even IQ itself isn't a direct marker to define intelligence or lack there of either. It is an effective one and likely the best and simplest one that we currently have but it isn't absolute. To quote Einstein: "if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid"

 

There are many individuals who score excessively high on IQ tests but have effectively no ability to understand philosophy or SK. Meanwhile there are those who score low on IQ tests that understand philosophy reasonably well. 

 

An IQ test is really just a test measuring short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability and spatial recognition. The spectrum of human intelligence is wider than that. (Creativity, intuition, long term memory, empathy, ability to delay gratification, ability to observe, linguistics, time management, etc) It would be like evaluating the quality of an audio speaker by only how loud it is and ignoring other factors such as accuracy, bass, etc. IQ is certainly an effective marker but it paints a very incomplete picture when taken in isolation. 

 

 

 

Different IQ tests test different things. The one I took in middle school mainly tested three things;"Fluid intelligence", "Crystallized intelligence", and "Processing Speed" (Refer to wikipedia for details on each). I did very well on it.

EDIT: It may have been "visual" and "auditory" processing rather than "processing speed" and "crystallized intelligence".

 

Other versions aim for creativity, short and long term memory, quantitative and logical skills, and some all of the above. Usually though, when someone has, say 130 on one test they have between 115-145 on the rest. Therefore the "margin of error" (or more precisely the general range that the various factors are likely to be in) is approximately +or- 15. 

 

Again, while having greater horsepower makes cars more likely to win the race of life, not every car commits to winning or blows their gas tank too early (to stretch the analogy).

 

As for messy and obsessive geniuses; yeah, I get that. However they're rare enough that you aren't likely to mistake them for low-impulse-control riff-raff. But then again, I can't say as I haven't met any. 

 

As for just above-average and generally reliable/competent people, I don't think they're too hard to spot once you've gotten used to them (or best of all become one).

[chuttz]

If you have a chance to speak to somebody or even hear them talking to somebody else then look out for some of these signs. 

 

From my experience, the more a person makes snap judgments (I know I'm talking about judging people, but I'm referring to people actually saying this aloud) going off of very little information then the less intelligent they tend to be. Also, things tend to be one extreme or the other. "That's good." "That's bad." "He's a douche." etc. I have a theory about the people who apply extreme labels to everything ("It was the BEST thing in the world." "She was PISSED." "I'm sooo STARVING." "The movie was the absolute worst thing I've ever seen."). I think it makes for better gossip and for making inconsequential things seem interesting, since they spend so much time talking about surface level, mundane things they need to spice it up somehow. That's another topic, but I think that if you hear someone use a lot of extreme adjectives and over exaggerations then they're probably more likely to not value truth and are only interested in gossip and surface level conversations. 

 

Curiosity is a mark of intelligence, so if a person shows this then I tend to give them a little bit of credit. I see this as related in some way to snap judgments. The more curious a person then the less likely they are to immediately apply labels to things because their mind is busy, or they realize that it's not black and white.

 

Rude, inconsiderate, or careless people tend to be less intelligent.  This is tied to awareness or lack thereof, as somebody else has already pointed out. Rude people are less self-aware, or if they are aware and are still rude then they're just not thinkers. 

 

If they seem disingenuous, or they seem entirely too conscious of their movements and mannerisms then I count that as a mark of less intelligence. There are of course exceptions, since I know some very smart people on the edge of the autistic spectrum who are very awkward, but I think in general the more obviously phony a person is then the duller they are mentally. People unconsciously pick up on phoniness to some degree and in return give off signals of distrust or skepticism, and the people who are unable to notice these signals that they're receiving are the ones who continue on being disingenuous, completely unaware that people know. There are of course smart people who present false selves, but if they're actually bold enough to do that then they're more likely to go under the radar because they're better at it. 

 

The more I continue this list, the more I realize that a lot of it comes down to awareness. Dumber people are less self-aware and less considerate of others, so they will be louder, ruder, if they're disingenuous then it will be more noticeable. Their attention will be on surface qualities and surface issues, nothing deeper. Or if they do speak about something deeper, they merely spout conclusions since they're really just parroting what they've heard other people say. They will be more confident in announcing snap judgments.

 

Smarter people tend to show more consideration of people and things. They tend to be more genuine and have a better sense of awareness for themselves and the area around them. All of this is in general, and I can think of exceptions to all of these rules for certain times and places but I think this is a good generality of some of the differences when hearing people speak. 

[Sinistril]

I would argue that empathy has very little to do with IQ if anything. Rather, a high IQ person is just less likely to act against their own self-interest. Since you used the examples of violence, I will use an example with violence.

 

A low IQ person will be involved in a riot to make a point and get their way, often times these riots will destroy their own neighborhoods and reinforce their opponents points. This takes money out of their directly out of their community and themselves that they could use to better themselves.

 

A high IQ is more likely to find a useful way to get their point across. Whether it is writing about the issue, advocating peacefully for the issue (usually not in groups as a high IQ person can recognize the dangers of being associated with large groups), and they will try to work towards achieving their goals. If their goals are less homelessness in their community, for example, they may donate towards or help build a home for someone.

 

It is not necessarily empathy, they just recognize the benefits to themselves. They recognize that if they were to use violence, then they would hurt their point and possibly land in jail: not good.

[AjaxTheGiant]

I think an important aspect to note here is that intelligence in this academic or traditional sense, is not the only type of intelligence. There are other areas of intelligence such as emotional intelligence and the like. It may be difficult to get an over arching characteristics held with high IQ and low IQ individuals as I contend that many aspects may be present in both that have nothing to do with intelligence. I see that a lot of people say aggression and other characteristics with negative connotations; however, in my experience I have found both intelligence and less intelligence people act with characteristics that one may not associate with them. Intelligence is an extremely complex and complicated issue.