Sophisticated Intelligence vs Meat and Potatoes Intelligence

[Nateskate]

I love intellectual stories. But I've seen two types of intelligence. I'm naming them Sophisticated Intelligence, and Meat and Potatoes Intelligence.

Sophisticated Intelligence is written somewhat above the average Joe's vocabulary. Yet, there is also a Meat and Potatoes Intelligence.

In a sense it's like the show "Frazier". Sophisticated is Frazier who can obviously speak over Martin's head, but that doesn't make him smarter, just more cultured. Meat and Potatoes Intelligence is Martin Crane who just happens to have his own wisdom, but he speaks in the language of every man. He finds a simpler way to a profound truth.

This is really a question of tastes. Which type of story do you prefer, a story written by Frazier Crane, or by Martin Crane.

Obviously anything written by Daphne, and you'd be in a completely different Genre altogether, "Street Level Romance Novel"

However for the sake of argument pick either Sophisticated Intelligence or Meat and Potatoes, and explain what books fit that Genre in your opinions, and why you love it. Have fun!

[mr mistook]

I can understand sophisticated intellectual stuff, but what gets me is that they go out of their way to make things seem more complicated than they really are.

There's a certain IQ level - right around 135 to 145, where people are so impressed with their own intelligence that they just can't communicate with anybody. Every word they pick is designed to dumbfound people. They make simple things seem complicated, and they make complex things seem totally unattainable.

From "dolt" on up to 130, everybody has common sense. Again, at 150 (super-genius) and on up to the top - these folks have common sense. All these people can communicate freely and easily.

Take a dolt, put him in the room with a super-master genius - you'd be hard pressed to tell the two apart. One thing's for sure - they would understand each other. Now take a garden variety academic genius and throw him in the room. He's the guy who needs the most help.

[drgnlvrljh]

If the narrator is acting like an intellectual snob, then no. But if the narrator is sophisticated in his intelligence and isn't talking down to me, then I enjoy it. Same with "Meat and Potatoes". In this, I take it he has common sense, street sense, horse sense (whatever way you want to put it).

[drgnlvrljh]

Mr Mistook, You just described an old friend of mine to a "T" :lol

This guy could be a mensa candidate. But common sense? Not a lick. The only thing that's kept him alive all this time, is his wife (who has the same intellectual level, but the common sense to go with it).

A perfect example: They have three very intelligent, and mischievious boys. One summer the boys were playing with the toads in the yard, and they kept bringing them in the house. After about the gazillionth time of being chased out, my friend started yelling.

He made one mistake, though. He didn't look in his glass of pop after they boys left, and he took a BIG swig. :rollin

[KLH]

I dunno abou that 'people with IQs in this range' - that's assuming the person knows his or her IQ. I didn't find out until I was out of college that my father's IQ was above 155. I don't know the exact number, only that it's Pretty Damn Impressive, or so my Mom said (she hadn't known either, until after they married).

One average IQ friend described it like this: Where the rest of the world drives in a four-lane highway going about sixty-five, my father was driving an eight-gear car on a twelve-lane highway doing about a hundred-and-sixty-two. For him to slow down and converse with other folks...well, by the time they'd parsed his rather (to them) abrupt and intuitive comments, he was already off on another topic or idea. However, as a strong introvert, they didn't see this - they just saw the glaze in his eyes, silence, then he'd blurt out the next thing, and it'd take them twenty minutes of back-tracking later to see the leaps from Point A to Point J.

When my father was diagnosed with a type of brain atrophy, he was tested and they discovered his IQ had dropped 20 points. He still qualifies for MENSA, damn it - only now he reads Tom Clancy and complains bitterly about being so stupid he has to have a notepad at his side to track all the characters. (I told him, welcome to the rest of the world, of people who NEED those character lists.)

No. Common-sense seems to have little to do with actual intellectual capacity. I've known some amazing daydreamers who are of average intelligence and lack the commonsense the universe gave a flea; I've known folks in the mid-range (subgenius) who are carpenters, mechanics, solid earthy commonsense who just happen to be able to do crossword puzzles in pen. Nor are high-IQ people likely to try and talk down to others. My father never tried to talk down to people, nor do the other highly intelligent people I've known. More often, they're trying to find the perfect word...which just might be a word the rest of us have never heard before. But, hey, it's the perfect word! They're happy.

[Nateskate]

I appreciate people who are smarter than me, but I also appreciate it when they can explain things at my level.

There are smart people, who were just in environments that were more sophisticated. I doubt that everyone who talks above a person's heads are trying to impress others or stump others. They may simply have a greater gift, and trying to reach an audience of their peers.

In some respects, a person with average intelligence will have to talk down to the level of others for them to get it.

But my curiosity is whether there is a publisher/editorial snobbery that forces "Newbie" writers to write at a certain level, with great prose, or they wont even take them seriously? It's more of a "flavor" of the month type of writing.

I'd hate to think I might be locked out of an industry because that isn't my particular gift, whereas, I'm good with meat and potatoes types of conventional wisdom.

I don't dislike more sophisticated works, I just have to work harder to get them. But as you go, you do build up a better vocabulary.

Again, it is a matter of tastes. Remember, many geniuses like to read too. And for them, reading what appeals to me may bore the snot out of them. So, sophisticated authors may shoot for a different demographic, and may not be trying to stump the lower I.Q, although you'll find pride wherever man excels at anything.

[maestrowork]

I have an above 130 IQ... I don't think I can't communicate with others. :lol I don't think IQ has anything to do with it. I have a friend whose IQ higher than mine -- 156, and he's one of the most approachable people in the world. He's not like Frasier Crane at all.

For me, I like somewhere between meat and 'taters and "sophisticated." I don't like pretention, and I find a lot of "sophisticated intellectual" pretentious. I don't like too down to earth, either.

If I have to pick, I'd pick Niles WHEN he's with Daphine. He's smart, he's sweet, he's more approachable and less pretentious than Frasier.

[reph]

The stories I like are written by people who have both kinds of intelligence–at least, insofar as I can detect that from their stories.

[Jamesaritchie]

There's a certain IQ level - right around 135 to 145, where people are so impressed with their own intelligence that they just can't communicate with anybody. Every word they pick is designed to dumbfound people. They make simple things seem complicated, and they make complex things seem totally unattainable.

I don't think this is true at all. My wife and I both have IQs that are well above MENSA standards, 150 and 163 respectively, and my writing is clean and straightforward, so I can't argue that point, but I know several writers in the IQ range you complain about, and they're the cleanest writing, most communicative people out there. The 125-145 IQ range is that of the most successful people in nearly every field above skilled laborer, including writing.

And to be honest, I find incredibly little common sense in any group of people, but the lower the average IQ of the group, the less common sense those in it seem to have. Common sense tends to rise along with IQ, in fact.

I'd say from dolt up to 120, nothing is less common than common sense. It's easy to see lack of common sense in those with IQs more than one standard deviation below normal, which should be a clue that lower IQ will, on average, mean less common sense, as, in fact, is the case.

It's been my experience that most of those who use a ridiculously complex vocabulary in writing when it isn't needed are not people of high IQ, but people of low to moderate IQ who are trying to appear smarter than they really are.

Sometimes, of course, a complex vocabulary is necessary for a detailed explanation of a given subject matter, but this is a different matter. Individuals in any group may be guilty of anything, but none of those I've known with IQs in the 135-145 range spoke or wrote in any way that deviated from those above or below, except when and where necessary, and they certainly have as much common sense as any group, and far more than most on average.

Lack of common sense can hit any individual in any IQ group, but on average, common sense can be charted with a line graph that shows remarkable similarity to the gaussian distribution (bell curve) of IQ. In other words, despite the stereotyping, the smarter you are, the likelier it is that you have more, not less, common sense. This includes those in the 135-145 range. All my kids are in this range, by the way, and all three have remarkable common sense, as is typical for such a group.

As for writing, different types of novels with different types of characters demand different writing styles, vocabulary, and complexity. Not all novels are written for all readers, and not all readers will find all novels readable.

You can't write Huckleberry Finn using the vocabularly and complexity of of a Shakespearian play, and you can't write most Shakespearian plays with the vocabulary and simplicity of Huckleberry Finn.

The norm is also for those with higher IQs to also have much larger vocabularies, and the more words you have at your disposal, the more likely it is you'll use words and sentence structure many find difficult to follow.

Meat and potatoes make a fine meal, but escargot and truffles with a bottle of good Chardonnay on the side also make fine eating. It just depends on who does the cooking, who's doing the eating, and whether or not the occasion calls for it.

But there certainly is no drop in common sense, or rise in needless complexity and inappropriate word choise, for those with IQs of 135-145. Just the opposite.

[Nateskate]

If he was the wisest man of his times, he found a way to speak at a common man level. However, you still had to dig deep to understand what he was saying. The Song of Solomon is deeply metaphorical and allegorical. No one, "Just gets it", on the first read. Even though it is written as a simple story, you have to first realize that it isn't a simple story before you begin to understand it.

He also used proverb as a tool to teach. A proverb is not like a thesis. It's the ability to capture something profound with the least amount of words possible.

But he breaks down what we consider intelligence into four categories: Wisdom, insight, knowledge and understanding.

What we call "I.Q" is neither, but can contain elements of each. Having a high I.Q is like having a fast computer with a great deal of memory. You can store more information. It downloads it faster. However, you can have a brilliant fool. You can have someone who gets it, in an academic setting, but who can't understand what his wife expects from him.

The four that Solomon mentions are somewhat like software and the user. Knowledge is like software. You can store it, and access it, but you need insight on how to apply it. Knowledge and Understanding are different. One is information, the second is seeing how that information fits. Information: My wife isn't talking too me? She said I didn't care about her feelings" That's knowledge. Understanding is when you piece it together and think, "Oh, I ignored her feelings at the party, and told a joke at her expense, that's why here feelings are hurt"

Insight is, "Women don't think like men. You can't just treat your wife like a buddy in a locker room, and tease him about his imperfections. Do that with your wife and you'll crush her. Women are more sensitive than men"

Wisdom: If I want a good marriage, I will learn cause and effect. What does my wife like? What does my wife dislike? I will not be so foolish as to make fun of her "fill in the blank" again. I will learn to speak her language to convey what she needs to hear...etc.

Some people have a high I.Q and just don't get it. Niles doesn't get the common man. Neither does Frazier. They tend to be high on information, and sometimes low on common sense, which makes the show funny, and in a sense, them lovable.

I've seen brilliant fools, and extremely wise people with a low native intelligence. However, Intelligence is like a tool. If you have that and wisdom, and insight, and understanding, and knowledge, you have a world changing combination if you have the right "Motivation". If not, you can become the next Stalin. Ah, motivation, how did that get there?

Shrewdness and Wisdom are not synonyms. The wise will get this.

[maestrowork]

There are all kinds of people with all kinds of IQs, races, cultural backgrounds, whatever. I think it's pointless to argue whether people with high IQs have no common sense. It's just as bad as saying all Asian people are good at Math, or all women are sensitive and caring. I can be ignorant of something (but I learn fast), arrogant or condescending (more to do with my personality than my intelligence), but I'm no fool. If anything, my intelligence helps me realize my faults and allows me to think freely for myself.

I got together with some of my high school friends this November. I had the lowest IQ at the table -- I'd say we average at 152). But during dinner, we didn't talk about quasi-intellectual theories or the Mongolian yodelers or whether God was a collective conscience exemplified by humans to validate their own existence... We talked about raising children and what stupid bosses we have and the economy in general terms. We talked about movies like Spiderman and Finding Neverland. OK, so we talked about politics a bit as well, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Frasier and Niles, etc. are caricatures. The show is a comedy with neurotic people, intelligent or not (Martin, Daphne, Roz -- they're ALL neurotic). Certainly I've also met people like Frasier and Niles, but by no means I would lump a whole group of people based on those individuals.

[Nateskate]

maestrowork, I completely agree.

It wasn't my intention to start this thread to "bash" intelligence. That would be foolish. In fact, there was no value judgment involved.

I was simply wondering what people's tastes were, because some books are sophisticated, which is not implying arrogance at all. In fact Tolkien's books contain quite a number of words that readers might have to look up, but it isn't written over people's heads either.

If I was saying that eveyrone had to come down to the level of every reader, then everybody has to write everything at a 3rd grade level or they'd be arrogant" I'd be nuts. I didn't stop to explain what a Metaphor was. If someone doesn't know what it means, look it up. That isn't arrogant either. Arrogance is simply when you look down at others, and it isn't arrogant to write at a level of your audience. And if someone isn't at that level, they have to work to keep up, but if they are motivated, they'll learn as they go.

This conversation took a number of turns, because, correctly, there are pompous people who simply do like to lord their intelligence over the drones of the earth. But I wasn't referring to them when I posted this. And we all know them, or knew of them. I had college profs who were brilliant but down to earth, and others who thought they were God's gift to Academia.

And perhaps it was my fault in choosing Frazier, who could have a pompous moment. Maybe that was my mistake. But in terms of language, he speaks in sophisticated terms, and I simply thought he'd be a good example. In a sense, he isn't arrogant as much as he doesn't get other people, and needs his father to balance out his rough edges.

You are right. You can be intelligent and wise. But a person could also be intelligent and be a fool. And also you find people with relatively low intelligence, who are very wise, and others can have low intelligence and be a fool. It's what you do with what you have that makes the difference.

In literature, I've noticed that some things are written in a style that I call meat and potatoes wisdom, because it clearly has depth, and yet it speaks to every man. I've also seen literature that requires a level of sophistication to get.

But again, this is not a value judgment. If I spoke in medical jargon, only medical people would get what I'm saying, but that isn't arrogance if I'm speaking to a medical community. However, if I wrote a novel and said that the protagonist had a bilateral salpingo oopherectomy, I might sound smart (in my own head) but if I thought that the lay reader would not wonder what in the heck I'm talking about, I'd be a moron. Instead, I might choose to say she had a hysterectomy to remove a cancerous tumor (Not exact translation), but catches the gist, more people would catch the meaning. And if they don't know what a hysterectomy is, then they'd have to look it up.

Again, this is not to criticize sophistication at all.

By the way, I'd also presume from what you say that you are an intelligent down to earth person with a good deal of insight into people, which is great.

So, who you are, isn't simply your I.Q, and neither are your friends. But there may be another table down the isle where they are conversing about cosmology and event horizons impact on time, while their friends are sitting their dumbfounded. Not all smart people are arrogant. Many are wise. Some aren't. But there are some really stupid fools as well.

[maestrowork]

I enjoy a good book that enlightens, entertains, and enthralls me. Whether the book is "sophisticated" or "down-to-earth" isn't as important as whether the author tells a good story with good characters that tells the truth about human conditions. What I can't stand is a cliche plot with cardboard characters passing off as "intellectual" and sophisticated (ahem, some insanely popular novel and author, you ask?) If it's good writing, it's fine if the writing is sophiscated (e.g. The Life of Pi). It's also fine if it's down-to-earth (e.g. Mystic River), or somewhere in between (e.g. House of Sand and Fog).

[Nateskate]

I hear you. I love books that make you think. I'm not so sure that I loved Tolkien's style, but I liked the fact that he hid metaphors in his stories. "Elrond= The ancient wisdoms".

You go to Elrond, and always leave by a different direction in life, than you came by.

My writing style isn't at all like his, but I do enjoy having a very sophisticated plot.

When I sift through fantasy lit, I see so much that is formulaic. So many people enjoy the same story over again, just rewritten with different names, in a different time, or perhaps a different planet. But deep down, they draw on the same fundamental elements.

Honestly, my own story is full of layers, a story within a story. I tried to make the superficial story interesting enough to stand on its own, so that those who simply want to read the story enjoy it, akin to a LOTR.

However, I purposely chose symbolism and names to convey so much more. There are some words in the story that are written backwards. So, a "name" isn't always just a name.

I want people to think beyond the story, "Why does his pack become so heavy that he can't reach the mountain top until he lets go?"

This may sound terribly grandiose, but when I wrote the story, my hope was that after people are done reading it, they go back and say, "What did he mean when he said this?"

In the story, I personify Wisdom, Insight, Knowledge and Understanding, and spent a good deal of thought crafting Wisdom's perspective of life.

I'll give you a for-instance, Wisdom keeps changing shapes like a shape shifter. One time he's an old man, another time a child. Likewise, his house keeps changing shapes from a run down shack to a palace, and everything in between.

Why do you think that is? Games on.

[veingloree]

I think you've set up an unfair comparison by using Frazier to exemplify writing that assumes a certain sort of education or knowledge. I think that sort of writing can be very rich an enjoyable -- for example a story might require you to know quite a lot about Greek mythology without being condescending to those who, as it happens, don't. It's just written with a certain audience in mind.

[Nateskate]

veingloree, I'm not sure if you read all of my posts. I made a latter clarification that Frazier was probably a poor choice, and I think I agreed with pretty much everything that you sad.

This was a "Tastes" only question, but morphed into a different subject for a variety of reasons. I didn't mind that it morphed, because intellectual arrogance can also be an interesting subject to tackle.

However, you are correct. There is subject matter that has to be sophisticated, and you can't change it.

And I used the illustration of medicine. A doctor can write for patients, or for other doctors. If he writes for other doctors, they had better know what a myocardial infarction is. It's death of some of the myocardium (heart muscle). Well, in layman's terms that's a heart attack.

Still, that doesn't mean an author can't use the term "Myocardial Infarction" in a story. The Lay person wouldn't understand the anatomy of the heart, but the doctor better know that. If the author wants to make the case that the protagonist really is a doctor, he'd want to illustrate this by purposely using medical jargon that only a medical professional would understand.

The show E.R employs this tactic. There are lines in the story that aren't meant to be understood. Why? The idea is to make it sound like a real E.R where patients would hear words they didn't understand, because you don't want them thinking, "These are actors," but doctors. But they blend in those incomprehensible terms with mostly every day speech, so that the whole show doesn't talk over the viewers head.

How? They have the nurse explain the term to the patient's family. But another time, they may want to convey the confusion that the patient feels, especially when there is so much going on that nobody can take the time to explain what is happening.

[maestrowork]

I also write in layers. There are lots of meanings and layers that an acute reader would figure out. But the main story should reach a common level that even if the readers don't get the "hidden" meanings (or subtexts, if you will), the story can still stand strong: enlightened, entertained, entralled.

It's like your example of ER (however, I have grown out of that show... I digress). You don't have to have a medical degree to enjoy the drama, but if you do (like my mom, who used to be a nurse), all the better and more realistic.

But when you have a reader who gets everything, even your layers and symbolisms, etc, it's a great feeling for the author. It's not about sophistication or intelligence or superiority or whatever. It's about how you can touch someone at different levels.

[Nateskate]

I'm glad to hear you think that way as well.

By the way, Maestro, want to take a stab at why I portrayed Wisdom as a shape shifter...etc? (Or anyone else for that matter?)

[maestrowork]

Well, I think wisdom is all things combined: knowledge, intelligence, common sense, compassion, understanding, etc. etc. You can't have wisdom without any of these.

[Nateskate]

That's a great answer. And there is definitely something to that.

However, here's what I wanted to get across. You can't have wisdom without humility, and you can't have wisdom where there is prejudice. Pride prevents the teacher from ever learning from the student, and the parent from learning from the child. Life is a course in wisdom to those who are aware that Wisdom can speak at any time and any where, as long as we are listening.

I borrowed the personification of Wisdom from Solomon's book of proverbs. However, I took it and stretched it.

Wisdom is everywhere, and can speak through anyone. The key is that we should humbly realize this. If I assume that you can't teach me something, I close my heart and become incapable of hearing what you may have to say, missing what you might teach me.

Wisdom speaks through the poor, the rich, the young and the old. It speaks through nature, through sparrows, and flowers. It even speaks in our mistakes and our failures.

The problem is that "we" humans become so busy that we miss the lessons that life would teach us because we are not looking.

Therefore, in the story, Wisdom lived in a house, and in a field, and was at times an Old man, at other times a young child.

The protagonist had to come to the house of wisdom to learn how to hear, before he could complete his task, and at first he was confused, until he realized that everything that he was seeing around him was an object lesson.

[ChunkyC]

Fabulously interesting thread, folks.

When faced with the intellectually superior, it often makes me feel a bit like Antonio Salieri, the composer who beheld Mozart and knew he could never achieve that level of excellence. However, unlike him, I'll endeavor to stay sane and strive to improve my own skills rather than fall prey to insane jealously.

I admire intellect, but I despise arrogance and condescension. If a writer can weave subleties into a story that I might not understand without making me feel inadequate, for that writer I will find a special place on my bookshelf.

[reph]

To Jamesaritchie: Do you think you'd detect the 13-point difference between your IQ and your wife's if you didn't know your scores? I'm assuming the two of you took the same test. As you probably know, standard deviations differ among tests.

(I think I can spot a 15-point difference between me and another person, in either direction, if the person talks long enough. I'm not confident that I can spot a 5-point difference. By the way, my husband and I are 1 point apart.)

To everybody: What kind of writing gives you the impression that the writer is talking down to readers, as distinct from just writing at an intellectually sophisticated level or showing off?

[mr mistook]

To everybody: What kind of writing gives you the impression that the writer is talking down to readers, as distinct from just writing at an intellectually sophisticated level or showing off?


Read some non-fiction science books and you'll get familiar with the difference real fast. I read a book once by an entomologist once - it must have been written in the 1890's or something. His language was ornamental, and very technical, yet his love for bugs came through. It was a joy to read. He was over the top.

I read another by a microbiologist. If you had an IQ of 90, you'd have been pulled in and fascinated by this guy's description of the microscopic world. He told me what happens to my face when I shave, and how exactly my milk goes sour in the fridge - things nobody needs to know - but he MADE me care and understand.

By contrast, there are other scientists (especially biologists and to an extent, physicists) who simply can't hide their disgust with the concept of God. Very pro-athiest, anti spiritual stuff. It's common for such authors to dedicate at least a short chapter to explaining why they just can't beleive in a God - usually couched in an anecdote where they are having a chat with some poor, stupid friend who can't accept the shining truth of science.

There is even more thinly disguiesed rancor reserved for folks who believe in the paranormal. Why is this necessary? It's not. Science need not conflict with faith of any kind.

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

In the world of fiction - my prime example would be Ayn Rand. Every word of "Fountainhead" is calculated to cast aspersions on all who would dare suggest that selfishness isn't a virtue.

[Flawed Creation]

I've noticed that the thread quickly became a question of common sense v. intellect. however, the original post seemed to me to be a question of intelligence v. education.



Frasier Crane's over-sophicated attitude is a result of an education taken too seriously. the propensity for pompous verbosity was engendered by a complex sociocultural (most probably affluent) background. while persons of extraodrinary mental prowess are indeed somewhat more likely to employ polysyllabbic verbiage, i have witnessed it's use by persons of no great wit.

to sum up: being smart does not cause someone to speak like a "sophisticate" i have found almost no correlation.

someone who has grown up among scholars will, of course, speak like a scholar. on the other hand, a genius on the streets of the inner city wil speak in roughly he same way everyone else on the streets speaks.


at times, many people seem to forget the distinction between knowledge and intelligence. the most basic difference would be between what one has learned, and what one is able to learn. i've had some great opportunities to leanr things, an i sometimes encounted public school kids who complain that i'm smarter than they are. most of the time, this isn't the case. they are equally smart, and i have just overawed them with something they never had the opportunity to learn.


regarding intelligence itself, i think that real intelligence is a mix of factors, the most important being what i call, for lack of a better word, logic.


being able to quickly memorize facrts, absorb information, comprehend patterns, statistics, work equations: these are all very useful, but these are not really the core of intelligence. a person with perfect memory but nothing else is not a genius but an idiot savant.

real intelligence is, to me, in the way people think. the smart people i have known all share one quality: they think.

by this i mean that they don't merely remeber nformation. they remember the right thing at the right time, and can extrapolate from what's immediately available, either by intuition or deduction. they can quickly grasp the essence of a problem, understand the specific solution required and creatively envision the possible responses.

one thing you will see, if you spend time watching a group of young genous, is that conversation are much faster paced. comprehension is quick, and people will easily decide what to say next and understand how it should be phrased. eveyone's minds are whirling so fast that it is difficult to follow a conversation at all if one isn't quite familiar with the subject at hand.

all this, of course, is a discussion of intelligence considered as one quality. of particular note are those people with pronounced gifts and weaknesses.

often, to me, the perceived distinction between frasier inteeligence and "meat and potatoes intelligence" is between someone with the most obvius and celebrated marks of intelligence (memory, understanding of mathematics and deductive logic, etc, mastery of complex words) as compared to a person who, without demonstrating obvious nerdliness, possess profound insight and ability to understand.

i have a friend who is absolutely birlliant, but because her interests aren't math and science, and she doesn't speak like a professor, is rarely recognized as such.

for me, i feel my greatest strength is in divergent thinking. i find that i often leap from idea to idea so rapidly that most people with whom i converse are left behind as my mind spews forth one though, idea, insight after another. this si not really the fault of the listener, but a reflection fo the fact that i cannot talk as fast as i think.

finally, to whoever it was who said that people are often merely seeking the perfect word, i agree. i, in particular, am sometimes thought to be atempting to confuse people. this isn't my intent, but i've lover words and languages for as long as i can remeber. cna spell most anything, formulate grammatical sentences (when i want too) and am told my vocabulary is imprssive. most often the difficulty is in remebering that everyone may not immediately understand the way i speak. again, i don't think this is an intelligence issue. i have several incredibly smart friends who simply aren't good at, or interested in, speaking. they can't keep up with the way i talk.

that proved long an rambling, and somewhat immodest, so i think i'll halt this now.

[Nateskate]

I doubt I'd be able to tell that someone is 15 points higher in I.Q for a variety of reasons.

For one, Western Culture has biased testing, which is focussed on primarily two domains of intelligence, verbal and mathematical.

But there are other forms of intelligence that an I.Q won't test. One is social intelligence, which is the ability to read other people, and communicate. Some intelligent people can't communicate effectively. In fact, some of my most intelligent college profs couldn't communicate their way out of a paper bag.

There is musical intelligence. Some people can create a song, while many people with high I.Qs can't.

There are a variety of other domains of intelligence.

Often times intangible things that add to our perception of intelligence.

[maestrowork]

RE: IQ... well, it depends on which 15 points... is it between 100 and 115? I think there's quite a difference. If it's 85 and 100, there's a pretty big difference. But if it's between 150 and 165, I am not sure if there's that much of a difference. I don't know. I'm in a high range so even when my friends are above me, you're talking a 6 points difference, and honestly we don't notice it -- obviously they're good at certain things (some of the have GREAT, photographic memory, which I don't think I have; and some can solve complex physics problems like they would algebra) and I'm good at others (e.g. language, visual/spacial ability).

[Nateskate]

Well, let's look at Uncle Jim for a moment. I gotta love a guy who is willing to mentor people. Doing what he is doing with the writing tips thread is a real gift to humanity.

Teaching can be fun, but it always turns into work, and for him to stay with the thread for that long shows dedication to his craft and his students, and a great deal of character. That is absolutely praiseworthy.

Now, if he talks over my head it doesn't matter, because I feel like this guy cares about his readers. That's what come's through. And it doesn't hurt to elevate people in that sense, writing slightly above their level. Tolkien spoke of that in his bit on fairy stories in "The Tolkien Reader". He was against talking down to children, but thought it better to talk just slightly above them, in order to cause growth.

I don't mind someone talking over my head if he's trying to lift me up. It's the ones who talk over my head to remind me that I'll never be as brilliant as they are, who come off as pompous or arrogant. There's a world of difference.

[drgnlvrljh]

Jim is also, (from what I've noticed) willing to clarify a point that someone doesn't get, without talking down to them.

My fiance is a very, very intelligent man. Moreso than I. On top of that, he has more formal education than I do. But he never talks over my head. And if I don't understand his point, he'll clarify.

There is a difference between being highly intelligent, and being an intellectual snob. The snob will deliberately talk over your head, and when you don't "get it", they'll either give up in a huff, or they'll get arrogant. Intellectual snobs are not always that intelligent, although they may be an expert in their chosen field.

Most highly intelligent people are also able to talk to others of different backgrounds, but might prefer their own "kind" simpley because they can talk about their pet subject and be understood. But any other subject, they can talk to the guy with the 90 IQ as easily as the guy with the 150 IQ.

[Writing Again]

The first sensei (self defense instructor) I ever had caught a couple of students making fun of someone in the class who acted marginally retarded (OK, they were making fun of me) and he told them, "Few people are ever as smart as they would like to be, and those that are are satisfied with very little."

[ChunkyC]

To everybody: What kind of writing gives you the impression that the writer is talking down to readers, as distinct from just writing at an intellectually sophisticated level or showing off?
mr mistook mentioned non-fiction science books as an example. I have to agree. Steven Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" is extremely readable, and I probably learned more about physics from it than in all my formal schooling physics classes combined. At no time did I feel Hawking was talking down to me.

There's also the danger of dumbing it down so much that the reader is not challenged in any way. This is where understanding your target audience comes in, I would think.

In Uncle Jim's thread, I posted a paragraph and UJ caused me to think an awful lot about word usage. I wanted, and still do to be truthful, readers to think of me as an intelligent writer. Yet I had to step back and look at what I was doing and realized that I was showing off a bit, that I had made word choices not because they were the exactly right words, but because they sounded sophisticated. If I had been using language like that throughout my work, perhaps it would have been okay, but when I was forced to be honest with myself, I realized the fancy-schmancy words (UJ called them high-falutin') had no business being there, they drew far too much attention to themselves.

It's mistakes like that that can make a writer look pretentious and snobbish, and I fell into that trap. As a result of being called on it, my nice fat Thesaurus now occupies the space on my bookshelf furthest away from my chair, and like Frodo and the one ring, I continually struggle to resist its siren song.

[reph]

After reading the replies, I still don't know what it'd look like for a writer to seem to be talking down to readers in fiction. In conversation, I've felt talked down to when somebody said "One thing you have to understand is..." or went to great lengths to explain something obvious.

If a story uses fancy words gratuitously, the writer is showing off, or she comes from an academic background and hasn't shaken the habit, or there's another explanation. But it doesn't give me as a reader that feeling that she's trying to put me in my place.

[maestrowork]

I think one way for an author to "talk down" to the readers is by "hitting their heads with a 2x4" with philosophy, judgement, or whatever -- an ultimate author's intrusion. Or the author uses a fancy word, then explain to the readers like a 3yo what that word means.

[Writing Again]

What you feel as a writer will come through to the reader.

The best way to write something sad and have the reader feel the same emotion is to feel the sadness you are trying to convey and do your best to describe it. If you are trying to write about love then first feel love and then express it.

If you believe the reader is your friend and feel this in your heart it will show through, even when you are telling them something you think they do not know.

If you are contemptuous of the reader that too will show through.

One of the best ways to see this in your own writing is to write a short series of events from your own novel: First write to someone you respect, picturing that person in your mind: Next write the same thing, without looking at the original, to someone you think little of, perhaps someone you feel is beneath you or someone you would not normally associate with.

[aka eraser]

I struggled with, and ultimately gave up trying to read, Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow. I don't think it was a case of being "talked-down to" as much my intellect and/or patience not being up to snuff.

Of course, that was in my early 20s. I might be smarter now.

Okay, maybe not.

[Nateskate]

It would be difficult to say that someone is purposely talking down to a reader. You'd have to know the person. To me that would be the most foolish thing you could do, because any author generally wants to reach the widest audience.

So, again, you really can't judge a book by its cover. They may simply talk that way.

I can play guitar fairly well. There are some guitarists who play for general audiences, and other guitarists who only play for guitarists and musicians.

A rock song bores some guitarists. There are some musicians that the average fan wouldn't get, but another musician would, because musicians listen differently, and also appreciate more what is technically difficult. Some people hear a wall of music, others pick out each piece.

So, pressumption of arrogance because an author talks over my head is wrong on my part. Hey, they may simply feel that doing the best that they can is talking to those who get them.

I don't intend to write children's books. It's not my gift. So, I'm going to write at what I feel is a comfortable level. And hopefully people will get it.

I have a sister in law who loves experimental cooking. I just hate being asked over for dinner. It's a very hit or miss thing. And she misses more than she hits as far as I can tell, but honestly, she just loves to cook and try new things. There's an audience for her cooking. It's just not me.

Give me stuff you can order off a Perkins menue and I'll be fine.

Well, reading is like that. Some people really go for highly intellectual, and the other bores them. That's not snobbery, that's simply a matter of preference.

I probably read like I write. My vocabular and my I.Q are not off the charts, but I can get a point across.

[Flawed Creation]

I rarely feel talked down to by writers. the few times when i do, it's because:

the writer is using unneccessarily complex language or words. it's not that i don't understand this, generally. i can almost always grasp the meaning of a passage, but i think that the writer is being deliberately difficult.

occassionally, i will feel talked down to by the subject matter. for me it's not a matter of themes, so much as a story insufficiently complex. there's nothing i find mroe disappointing than a good opportunity for complexity and depth ignored.

when something that should give the character pause doesn't, when a character agress too readily with the rpotagonist, when an antagonist is either redeemed to quickly and completely, or on the other hand, made to totally evil, i feel that the writer has gone out of their way to simplify things for my primitive mind. this is somewhat condescending.

[Writing Again]

I have read stories that were obviously talking down to the reader as though the reader were a rather slow two year old, however never in a published story. Ever see Gore Vidal in person? His intellect was somewhat ponderous and after listening to him you might almost expect his writing to be intellectually insulting, yet it never was. Instead of turning his scathing wit on his readers he allowed his readers to join him as he turned it on other subjects. Somehow the sheer act of reading Gore Vidal makes one feel they are almost as smart as he is.

I don't think editors and publishers in today's world entertain the idea of publishing any ms that "looks down" on the reader. Does not mean that it does not exist, it does mean that if you have that tendency you need to get rid of it to be publishable on the open market.

If you really want to read some heavy handed stuff go back to the days when writers interrupted their prose to say, "And now, dear reader that is why his fortunes fell to such a low. Men who have not the moral fortitude to avoid drink and loose women will always have to suffer the dire consequences...I will not bore you with a fully detailed exposition of his slow decay but merely note that he died an impoverished and lonely man. And now on with the main part of our story."

If my memory serves me correctly that is not even much of an exaggeration.

[Nateskate]

Well, I must be a problem child. I wouldn't know if a writer is borish, simply because I decide so early into a book whether I want to read it.

I can generally tell in the first paragraph and definitely by the second page if I am drawn into the story. If not, back on the shelf it goes.

That's just the way that I am.

I love sci fi/fantasy. And generally speaking, there is "sci fi" lingo. Every generation of star trek builds on an a language that already exists. You either know the language or you don't get it.

However, my question is this, I see an increasing trend of authors to throw in "novelty" words in the first few pages of their novels. This is not necessarily sophisticated at all. Rather, it seems like an attempt to "top" myself or someone else, and I now wonder if that is expected in the Genre? Do Publishers expect that, or is it somewhat of a copycat trend?

I hope it isn't that Publishers expect this now. I'd like to think you can still start a book with a Hobbit and a Hole, without having to play, "Let's top this"

[sc211]

Great thread, with insights on Solomon and a valuable tip from Chunky.

As for sophistication in books, Nabokov is a heavy drink, and Shakespeare can wrap me up in a blanket, but what I like best are simple, solid writers like Jack London and Stevenson and Conan Doyle, who write with strength and clarity around matters of great depth. Joseph Campbell is another - someone who knows more about mythology and storytelling than we ever will, but shares it all with great warmth and candor, inviting us on the journey.

I stopped reading a Frederick Exley book because he used so many big words that I'd have to reach for a dictionary at least twice every page. He wasn't being condescending, though, just his own self. (And even wrote of how he confounded the school board for the same reason.)

Joyce is the one I won't go near because of how he hides so much in symbol and allusions I'll never get. Someone like Campbell can delight in it, like cracking a puzzle, but I haven't the time or interest.

Finally, as for Frazier, I'd enjoy talking with him, but after an hour or so it'd get old and hollow. With the father, while we might not have much in common, I'd enjoy just sitting back and listening to the stories of his life.

But ultimately, if I had my choice, I'd go with the dog.

[Nateskate]

I love Wisdom's personification in Solomon's book of Proverbs, and I employ this technique in one of my stories.

However, he doesn't include "Insight, Knowledge, and Understanding..." and separates the four.

There is no right or wrong answer as to whether these are "parts" of wisdom, or if they can be looked at as parts of what gives us the upper hand in life, but separate pieces that all work together.

You can have one part, but not the other. And I'll explain how. But first let me say, Wisdom says, "Get knowledge, understanding and insight." Only someone who lacks wisdom would do otherwise.

Knowledge is simple. It has to do with sheer information. But you can have information and still be incapable of knowing what to do with it.

I can know that my wife doesn't want a toaster for Christmas. I can know that she won't smile at getting a blender for valentines day. "I know" isn't enough.

Insight takes me to the next level. "My wife feels that these are not gifts of honor. My wife likes gifts that show relational honer, like jewelry (Most women do) flowers. In general, men want something they can use. But women are happiest when you give them something that has no other practical use than to say "You are special".

Sure there are exceptions, but this is the rule.

Understanding takes this insight to the next level, "My wife wants to feel honored. She wants me to proclaim to the world that she is not simply the person who cooks and cleans (for those who still do that) which is why a gift of a toaster or blender send the wrong message. She needs to feel "honored" and a gift that says, "I have chosen this person above all others and am willing to spend money for something that smacks of "honor", is the gift she'll appreciate the most.

That is why some women are absolutely floored when I guy rents a Billboard and sends a message, "Ruth, you are the greatest woman a man can ever have..."

Guys will say, "What a waste. By me golf clubs, tools, something I can use, but wasting money on a billboard..."

Well, Insight says, "Your wiring is different. Don't get her what you would get herself, get what she wants to receive, and she will give you what you want to receive in return."

Now to wisdom. Wisdom puts all of this together, and looks at cause and effect, and maps out a plan for life, "I'm going to plan for a happy marriage by becoming a student of my wife (women in general) to learn what she likes, what pleases her (never to presume or tell her what she should like or want) and I will invest in her so that I have a good marriage and happy wife. And in the end that will lead to happiness.

But a fool doesn't seek understanding, or insight, or knowledge. A fool is a presumptuous beast: "Hey, back in the kitchen! I put bread on the table and you should be happy you aren't living on the street!"

Well, a fool will be a divorced fool in two shakes of a stick.

[ChunkyC]

Don't get her what you would get herself, get what she wants to receive, and she will give you what you want to receive in return.
Good insights, Nate, but if your missus sees the typo in the following, I wouldn't count on it. http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/pi_bigsmile.gif
I can know that my wide doesn't want a toaster for Christmas.

[mr mistook]

I heard it said once that a smart man learns from his own mistakes, but a wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

When it comes to Solomn, there is a paradox in that story. First, when God tells him he can have any gift in creation, Solomon asks for wisdom. Obviously it took a great deal of wisdom for Solomon to make that request. God makes him the "wisest man who ever lived, and who ever will live"... but maybe Solomon already was that wise to begin with.

Either way, By the time he is an old man, Solomon has a giant harem of pagan princesses, who influence him to worship pagan gods. He pisses off God - which a wise man wouldn't do.

What does this say? Well, even the wisest man is likely to screw up sooner or later... but more to the point... it will be his libido that is to blame. :eek

[Writing Again]

When it comes to Solomon, there is a paradox in that story. First, when God tells him he can have any gift in creation, Solomon asks for wisdom. Obviously it took a great deal of wisdom for Solomon to make that request. God makes him the "wisest man who ever lived, and who ever will live"... but maybe Solomon already was that wise to begin with.

As I understood the Bible when I was reading it Solomon did not ask for "wisdom" as we think of it today. He basically asked for the ability to distinguish between good and evil in making decisions while at court. In other words he asked for the type of wisdom that is given by example in the Bible: The ability to determine which was the true mother deserving of the child.

You might say he asked to be the Judge Joe Brown of his day.

[Nateskate]

I saw the typo before your post, and wisdom told me to correct it. No, it wasn't a Freudian slip, as my wife isn't wide. Yikes, I'd be in the doghouse for sure.

[Nateskate]

Okay, let me say this. There is a difference between "Wisdom", and "Character". You can have one and not the other.

Wisdom anticipates the results of an action, or cause and effect. Someone can know, "I'm going to pay for this," and in the moment of temptation be a deer in the headlights and a moth drawn to the flames.

But ultimately, wisdom learns from those mistakes, and the next time (if there is a next time) doesn't allow themselves to even get near the flame.

In Solomon's case, in Ecclesiastes, he admits that he wanted to try everything under the sun, to see if there was wisdom in it, which includes mirth, and drinking, and obviously sex was high on that list, with 700 wives and 300 concubines.

But he was dancing near the flame from the youth, obviously violating the Law of Moses which forbid adding wives...etc.

And yes, he blew it big time. Essentially the temples he built were temples to the goddess of fertility (think Temple prostitutes) and the god of war, in a land where military build-up was forbidden.

So, if the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, then Wisdom isn't enough. Character or inner strength needs to be added to the mix.

[reph]

Nateskate, what you're calling wisdom, I'd call shrewdness, and I might admire it but I wouldn't necessarily respect its bearer.

[Nateskate]

Generally the difference between wisdom and shrewdness, "At least in the classical sense", is motivation. And again, this is a term which may have different definitions, depending upon whom you are talking too.

Shrewdness does not ponder the moral implications, such as "sowing and reaping", and therefore a shrewd person is seeking to gain the advantage over others, through manipulation and deceit.

The shrewd person believes that you can get away with murder. The wise person does not.

This is because wisdom takes into consideration that moral laws are somehow fixed into the universe, and that what you sow you will reap, so that whatever is sown with the intention of gaining the advantage over another, will bring a negative consequence.

In a sense, that is at the core of Solomon's wisdom, and even the wisdom of the Chinese and Indian cultures. They don't have the same religious beliefs, but have a concept that is similar.

Kharma is essentially a "sowing and reaping" philosophy, and so a negative action reaps "bad kharma".

Perhaps "wisdom" is always somewhat spirtual, where as shrewdness is convinced that crime pays.

So, when applying that kind of standard, Wisdom is not trying to take advantage of the wife, but trying to learn what motivates her, and using that to strengthen the relationship.

Shrewdness is the Don Juan, who simply knows exactly what buttons to push to get what they want outside of the context of relationship, who knows how to effectively "use and seduce" people to give what they would not have, by exploiting a need.

[Flawed Creation]

Nateskate- in reply to your post about various types of intelligence, i offer:

lately, in order ot be more "inclusive" society has broadened and broadened the definition of intelligence, creating "mathematical intelligence", "social intelligence", "musical intelligence", etc. this is a practice that i do not hold with because it effectively causes intelligence by itself to lose all meaning. and intelligence is, in my mind, a broader concept than a specific talent. let me consider, for the moment, musical "intelligence"

to me, a talent for music is not intelligence. this is not to say that is isn't important, valuable, to be respected. in fact, it's not to say that it isn't related ot intelligence. obviously intelligent people are at an advantage in the field of music. being able to grasp patterns, understand the logic behind the rules, absorb and understand the relevant information- these are all very useful. but yet, not only are there brilliant people who can't write music, but there are tsalented musicians who are not all that bright.

in fact, to me, being good at any one thing is not intelligence. some fields of endeavor are more directly related to intelligence than others. for instance, math and science are associated with intelligence because intelligence is so useful. in sicence, for instance, understanding logic, perceiving patterns, being able to extrapolate form known data and so on are crucial. math is similar, although there are people who excel at math while being otherwise only average.

but really, no matter what one does, intelligence is important. martial arts, for instance, seem to be a very physical field, but the smart practitioner always has an advantage.

in fact, to me that is the essential thing about intelligence. : it is not an aptitude at any one thing, but at life; skill at everything. in every field there are successes and failures, both brilliant and otherwise, but being intelligent is always an advantage.

perhaps the best example i can think of right now is Leonardo da Vinci: celebrated in soe many contects, but primarily as an artist and engineer. how did he excel at some many things? he was a genius.

[Nateskate]

We must always clarify what we mean, because the nature of language is to change, and so, meanings change with times and cultures.

I.Q subtests measure specific parameters of intelligence. That doesn't mean that every parameter of intelligence is factored in.

Intelligence as measured by an I.Q test does not measure every aptitude, although they can give you an idea in certain domains, they certainly do not across the board.

For instance, if I were to give a one stringed instrument to a group of children who have no musical training, and showed them how to make notes, and said, "Make up 3 songs in ten minutes," that would be a measure of intelligence. However, it is a measure that is not factored into any I.Q test.

There are people who would score higher on that subtest, who might not have a high verbal I.Q.

Likewise, I can make up a test of social intelligence, and determine who is a better reader of human emotions, or rules of interacting with people. It may seem subjective, but some people with a high I.Q would fail that subtest, and that would deflate their overall I.Q.

Heck, you could do that with cooking as well, in leaving out so many ingredients and asking how many different ways can this be prepared.

This is certainly not a novel idea to question the bias of Western Intelligence tests. There are studies of cultures and the weight that varying cultures put on what is essentially a "Greek" based view of intelligence. And likewise, there are studies on the values that schools place on certain types of learning, which benefits certain students and excludes others.

Samwise Gamgee could sound like a verbal dult, but in the garden he's a veritable genius.

[mr mistook]

Let me take another stab at this whole attempt to define intelligence.

I would say, in a nutshell, that intelligence is measured by four factors.

1) Ability to grasp
2) Agility and speed in the manipulation of what is grasped
3) communication
4) Facility for insight / inspiration


-----------
1. ABILITY TO GRASP: Some people just can't grasp in full, String Theory. On the other hand, some who CAN grasp quantum mechanics in all it's lovely detail, may not be able to decipher a poem, sense a spiritual truth, or throw a baseball. Very few people are able to grasp the hightest complexities in every sphere of experience.

2. AGILITY & SPEED: I can grasp a great deal, but I am slow as a freekin' snail! Once I know something, I know it, but sometimes it can take years to fully grasp it. My agility, with using what I know, is pretty good, in certain areas. There are folks much dumber than I who think and act much faster, and with much more accuracy, and in areas where I am weak. In many ways, speed is much more important that grasp. People don't need to know Relativity, or metaphysics to thrive.

3. COMMUNICATION: Now we get more mysterious. There are geniuses so gifted with communication that they can explain things you could never grasp in ways that you can grasp. Thus - almost magically - they raise your IQ. This goes for mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual spheres. Other geniuses lack the ability to connect outside their immediate peers - call it empathy.

4. INSIGHT/INSPIRATION: The most mysterious of all factors in intelligence, and the most important. Insight is the ability to see how things truly work. With insight, you can apply your knowledge of electricity to an economic problem. You can use what you know of psychology to aid you in understanding a weather system. You see how all things behave in similar ways.

Inspiration is a direct connection to the infinite. A person plays a fretless guitar with "soul" in a way that is both brilliant, yet undefinable. The performance can't be captured in sheet music, not even quite in recording, for it draws on something in the moment that is only perfect in that moment.
or A scientist has a sudden revelation, or a dream, that when applied to the task, revolutionizes human understanding.

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

[Nateskate]

I think you have insight into various domains of intelligence. And in some ways, your perception is as good as any.

The issues I'm talking about are only in the area in how we are culturally biased in "measuring" and "interpreting".

For instance, one domain of an "I.Q" test is "information". If you go to different demographics in the United States, "information" is not uniform. So, there can be a bias written into the test from the getgo, that will make a person of one culture look relatively less intelligent. And for this reason you will have an English W.A.I.S and a Spanish W.A.I.S. However, even within an English W.A.I.S, you'd need a ghetto W.A.I.S, a "Frazier" W.A.I.S...etc.

Frazier would sound like an idiot in some ghetto communities. His lack of understanding of ghetto culture would put him at a disadvantage in that culture. However, the I.Q tests are written more to the "Frazier Crane" culture than the ghetto culture. So, there is a built in cultural bias in many I.Q tests.

However, I have my own rudimentary (non-standardized) perception of intelligence. Let's say that each of us is given a set of gifts and abilities in different measures.

And I.Q scores can't measure them all. So, let's say I can understand Quantum Physics, which is a stretch by any means, and there is an activity in the community of some sort.

Well, other people have a gift of service in that if there is a function, they automatically know where to fit in and make themselves useful. In that social setting, you can have Einstein standing around getting in everyone's way, and you'd have to take him by the hand and tell him, "Albert, you hand out tickets...no Albert, there is no charge...yes, Albert to children as well as adults..."

I don't mean to demean Einstein, because I have no clue if that would be the case. But in some situations, some people can figure things out very quickly and are an asset. Others just get in the way, and you have to micro manage them.

And these people are caterers, and wedding planners...etc. Not everyone can do that. And some are better at it than others, they are organizing national conventions.

So, you have a native ability, and a level to that ability.

Let's say you are a teacher. Some teachers are decent, some are good, and some are out of this world, able to teach you thinks that you'd never learn from another person. So, the gift to teach is a specific gift. Not everyone can do it. Some of the most intelligent men in the world absolutely suck at teaching. They don't lose you because they are smarter. They lose you because they can't translate what they know into a common language.

So, you can grade their ability from 1-5 or 1-10. And likewise, some are just fantastic in the areas of creativity, whether cooking, writing, art...etc. Some people with a high intelligence are not creative at all.

They are good in a specific domain, but they aren't particularly artistic. And again, if you simply look at a key area, and assign a 1-5 scale to a variety of things-administration for instance, you have some that just can't administrate their way out of a paper bag period. They just have no gift in that area, but of those who do, you have various levels, some good and some great.

There are alot of ways to look at this. And in a sense, seeing it this way affords dignity to more people, in that you aren't saying, "You are stupid because you can't do what I do. You can't do physics!" Well, you may do things that I can't do at all. And my ability to grasp physics doesn't help me bake a pie, or organize a family reunion.

[reph]

Speaking of Freudian slips,

Some teachers are . . . out of this world, able to teach you thinks that you'd never learn from another person.

[triceretops]

I call intelligent writing stylistic writing, trying to purvey,
through the imaginative use of words a different way to say something that is very simple. But that doesn't mean I'm going to use a plethora of ten buck words to do so.
Every time I read anything that is intellectually strung out
using very obscure or profuse wordage I'm alerted to that nasty little habit called AUTHOR INTRUSION. Most of the time
the author is trying to impress rather than entertain. Sometimes the author is really impressed with themselves, and it really shows. I hate reading a story wherein I find this
type of writing. My eyes stumble...I lick my lips and slowly close the cover of the book, thinking to myself: 'I seeeeee...
yoooooooou.'

Not the character

The Author

Tri

[Nateskate]

Excellent point T, and I'd do the same. But I don't judge them all as trying to speak over my head.

Let's backtrack to what I just said. Many authors are natural teachers. Let's face it, the great teachers of old were philosophers, and they used stories to express their ideas.

There is nothing like a parable to make the most complex concept understandable, "A man had two sons..."

As I said before, some teachers are good teachers, and others are great teachers. A great teacher finds a way to make sure that "Everyone" gets it. So, a teacher who is not effectively getting their point across to the most people is certainly not the best teacher.

I once made up a game called "Profoundisms", which was a tongue in cheek backhand slap at the movie industries take on oriental wisdom. "Snatch the pebble grasshopper."

In the game, you'd have to say absolutely nothing, but make it sound so profound that people would ponder it for hours, assuming you were so deep. And strangely, you can find meaning in "Nothing" if you search long enough.

"The light of the red rose, is like silk above the stars that falls like thread upon the dry heart."

"Oh, teacher's wisdom is so far above this human plane. I must take this saying and master it."

Student comes back, "I am now enlightened...this is what the saying means..."

So, a profoundism puts you in a no lose situation. If they get it, it makes you seem brilliant. If they can't get it, it makes you look even more brilliant.

"Go back and ponder this awhile longer grasshopper. And when you have mastered it, I will give you an even greater saying."

[triceretops]

Correct, Nate, I getcha. No, not all deliberately try to impress me, some are actually taking me down an instructional
course as though I were in school again. It's a clever tactic that I admire. And besides, it is true that most agents and editors spot this highbrow delivery and suggest toning down.

Tri

[Nateskate]

I hope you don't mind the nickname "T"?

Books shmooks, let's all sit around the fire with a cup of hot chocolate and tell far out stories!

My game of profoundisms was for the most part to expose the whole concept that "Sounding aloof was somehow a sign of wisdom."

In my mind, Wisdom wants us to get it, not to make you climb the highest mountain and go to the very gates of Mordor to learn anything, which is why children are often more receptive to wisdom than adults. It's something we are supposed to get, and perhaps the only thing that blocks it is that our hearts have some hidden reason for not wanting to get it.

In our attempts to impress people with our wisdom, we often come across sounding like the biggest of fools.

[mr mistook]

"The light of the red rose, is like silk above the stars that falls like thread upon the dry heart."

Actually, that reminds me of a song I've heard.

[Flawed Creation]

NatesKate-

once again, i caution against too far broadening intelligence.

you posted

"
However, I have my own rudimentary (non-standardized) perception of intelligence. Let's say that each of us is given a set of gifts and abilities in different measures.

And I.Q scores can't measure them all. So, let's say I can understand Quantum Physics, which is a stretch by any means, and there is an activity in the community of some sort."

you went on to list a number of separate gifts. while interesting, ad making the point that cooking is just as important as quantam physics (i happen to be interested in both), you never quite get around ot defining intelligence. somehow, intelligence get's lost in the shuffle of talents and skills. this is not surprising. intelligence is a concept under attack.

no one wants to admit to be less intelligent than anyone else. political correctness damands that we not insult anyone. furthermore, there is a misperception that intelligence is the most important thing. people pratcing professions not traditionally considered "intelligent" have a valid desire for respect, but the answer is not to broaden the definiton of intelligence but to realize that being smart isn't everything.


you mentioned, for example, "social intelligence". some people are simply natural diplomats, others can't help saying something awkward. all this is true.

personally, i know several born diplomats. i am not one of them. my only gift in that area in is persuasive argument- making speeches before a group. acting as a leader. unfortunately, i'm not so good at dealing with people one-on-one, and making sure not to offend. but that's not the point.

some of these diplomats are very smart. some of them are not. i know people who have difficulty understanding math, who don't seem to learn things as quickly or remeber them as well, who need things explained more carefully than most people i know. on the other hand, they always know what to say, can always calm down someone who's upset, and are generally pleasant to be around and excellent friends. are these people inelligent? not especially. but they are empathic, understanding, and courteous. of course these things are important. they're qualities i wish i had. but they aren't intelligence, and it only confuses things to call them intelligence.

regarding teachers; again, some of my teachers are brilliant. some of them are not. many of the best teachers are smart, because a command of the subject to be taught obviously helps, but many more factors og into it. empathy, leadership, charisma, motivational skills, etc. these things ultimately prove more important than smarts.

please don't think i'm advocating I.Q as intelligence. i, too belive that I.Q. is too narrow. but i don't belive that interpretive dance, cooking, and martial arts are intelligence. they're interpretive dance, cooking, and martial arts.

[mr mistook]

Flawed,

You haven't really defined intelligence either. I take it from your post that you consider it to be more or less a mental/intellectual capacity. It seems you don't include, for example, exquisit physical coordination as a form of intelligence.

I guess you're right. After all... the root word of "intelligence" is "intellect", therefore, strictly mental.

I divide human experience into four spheres - spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical.

My point, (and maybe Nate would agree) is that the true bias in western culture is the assumption that "intellect" trumps everything else, and this is why we have a measure of "intelligence" but no measures of...

"emotigence",

"physiognisance",

or "gnostigence"

Of course, none of this is suprising, given that establishing "quotients" for things, and tests to measure them is totally a function of the intellect.

[reph]

My point, (and maybe Nate would agree) is that the true bias in western culture is the assumption that "intellect" trumps everything else...

Yeah, because Western societies live by literacy and technology.

[Nateskate]

"My point, (and maybe Nate would agree) is that the true bias in western culture is the assumption that "intellect" trumps everything else, and this is why we have a measure of "intelligence" but no measures of..."

Both of your points are excellent, and I do think we tend to have a Greek Philosophical view of life, as opposed to an Eastern, and other Philosophical views. I'm not a Gnostic, and don't believe that "Intellectual ascent" equals spiritual enlightenment. I do believe we place "ability" above character, and that in my eyes is a grave mistake from a cultural perspective and just from a human perspective. I'd rather "love" well, than have a perfect SAT.

And it is not necessarily "Greek", but if I can remember my Philosophers correctly, I believed it was Plato who saw math as the ultimate expression of truth. My son likes Plato, so I hope I didn't get them mixed up.

We are mixing things somewhat here, in that book smarts and a person's value are not related. Intrinsic value is not dependent on our gifts, but our beings, and anything that rejects that tends to smack of arrogance.

So, a person doesn't need to be intelligent to have value. And because of that, I would never argue that every one is intelligent in their own way.

However, I do argue that those who "have greater intelligence" can manifest it in a variety of ways, some which are recognized and some which are not recognized.

In some sense, one might argue that having greater intelligence also comes with a mantle of sorts, to have a greater responsibility to use what you have.

But apart from that, we have culturally defined values, and I tend to like to step away from Archetypal thinking, and ask myself, "Am I biased by culture, philosophy, theology, and all that I've been taught to believe.

There are entire schools which are tending to expand their idea of what constitutes "learning" in a school setting, and whether we do tend to be "techno-addicts".

And of course, in such a society where information technology is highly valued, engineers, physicists are also highly valued.

Having a cultural mindset that elevates some people's gifts, while not recognizing others, actually makes society out of balance. Honestly, I'd love to see kids put down gadgets, and spend more time interacting, going into the woods and building forts. I'd also have loved to see the schools handing out less homework, which I think also ruins teachers lives as well as students.

All work and no play makes Nateskate a dull boy.

[mr mistook]

Yeah, because Western societies live by literacy and technology.

I disagree. I think in our first century there was a very strong emphasis on liberal arts. Not that it outweighed "the three R's" but time was, you weren't considered a decent citizen if you couldn't play an instrument, write a poem, draw a picture, and express yourself eloquently, no matter what your social class.

On top of all that, yes... it really didn't hurt to invent something. Abe Lincoln pattented a few things. Who didn't patent something in the 1840's?

There used to be a strong American drive to prove that liberty produced very clever, well-rounded people no matter what their class. The lowest pauper could converse intelligently with the president, and hope to become president himself. We had something to prove.

These days we've become so stratafied.

Read anything written in the 1800's. It's over the heads of all but the best educated people - yet back in the day, every housewife and farm-hand could read and understand that stuff. Have a lot of people gotten dumber, or have cultural "morays" "skewed" ?

[Nateskate]

It's what Tolkien feared. What makes life easier doesn't necessarily make life better.

I also appreciate writings from other times and places. It helps me to realize that people didn't always think like they do today.

Perhaps it is because we have "mass media", in which we've marketed ourselves to death with what is important. And what they market is a constant stream of "Buy this and you'll be happy."

People hardly know what makes for happiness any longer. And I'll tell you one reason why. People need to connect spirit to spirit with other people, and essentially that doesn't happen in the formats in which humans interact for the most part, with some exceptions.

Sam and Frodo had to get out on the mountaintop, not only to know who they other was, but also to know who they were. They had to put themselves into challenging situations where they were forced to go outside of their own thinking, and to dig deeper.

Lincoln, like many of his century were deep deep thinkers. Why? They weren't bombarded with entertainment and a constant stream of information and stimulation 24/7. My wife is a college prof, and I was talking to a few of her colleagues at the Christmas dinner, and there wasn't one teacher I talked to that didn't agree that it is harder to teach young people of this generation than any other.

One of them was a bio-psychologist. And he agreed that people's attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. In essence the MTV generation have brains over stimulated with pop information.

Picture your brain as a huge chemical computer, and you are the programmer. Whatever you put in it will impact the way it operates. In a sense, you have adrenaline addicts who can't live without a constant flurry of stimulation. So, the net impact is shorter and shorter attention spans.

That's one reason it is good to get away from the t.v for awhile and interact with human beings in real time, and not just at the gym, but where its quiet and real communication takes place.

[Garpyboy]

Blimey...am I the only one here with an average IQ? I just had mine tested again with one of these online tests...and it was 123. Yet everyone else here on this thread seems to be 130-140 and over. Sheeesh.

I believe in a principle I have dubbed 'intelligence volume'. Namely we all of us have roughly the same amount of...for sake of a better term...'brain power'. But how that brain power is utilized varies immensely from person to person. For example...a very creative person, prone to frequent flights of fancy and incredible imagination can often seem to lack common sense, or street savvy. This is because most of their bandwidth is taken up with thinking up really cool stuff.

I think I fall into that category...although it's not for me to say that what I write is imaginative or not, I do know that there are shoes with more common sense than me. And in some ways....when I wonder whether my writing ability is up to scratch, I take some comfort from the fact that I can't change the alternator on my car, that I can't successfully wire-up a ceiling light...that I can't figure out how to tell WORD to stop autoformating my manuscript....because (if my IQ volume theory holds water) it means my brain is filled with more interesting things like stories, characters and settings.

Or maybe, I really am just dumb ;-)

[Nateskate]

Your point is interesting. It is said that we all only use about 10 percent of our actual brain potential, and I'm not quite certain that is true?

Cognitive therapy is something they do for brain injured patients. There are scans which show which areas of your brain are active during a particular task.

What happens when a particular part of your brain is injured and doesn't function well? Cognitive therapy trains a part of the brain that was relatively dormant to make up for damaged parts of the brain.

What is not known is the full potential of the brain. In other words, how far can it be pushed? But they do know that there are ways to increase overall I.Q, especially when the brain is still most flexible, through a variety of exercises. In a sense it is like exercising muscles, use it or lose it.

But like strength, you can improve only to a certain level. I don't care how much you work on the leg muscles, you can't expect that everyone will be able to jump 42 inches from a standstill. Only a fraction of people in the world can do that. However, yo can increase from 18 inches to 22 inches, which is significant.

The equivalent is an Einstein, except his gift is not athletic.

Your question would imply that Einstein is simply better able to focus on one area, and that allows him to excel in that one particular area.

What would cause me to doubt that, is the fact that there are tens of thousands of people who are equally obsessed with physics, and none of them are anywhere in the ballpark of an Einstein in intellectual ability.

However, I do agree that when you work on a particular area of interest, you will improve in that area. The more you write, theoretically, the better you should write.

[reph]

Post-mortem examination of Einstein's brain showed a difference from most people's. He had an extra fold (more tissue) in an area responsible for visualizing movement. That could easily explain the thought experiments he invented that helped to change physics.

[Nateskate]

Well, the rest of us have to just make due with what we got.

All the same, I'd like to somehow backtrack to the original point, in some ways, "Intelligence is in the eye of the beholder."

In my mind it is a mistake to only recognize an "I.Q" test. In fact, I'm not so sure if my I.Q is average, above average, far above average, although I'd be surprised if I was in the dull borderline range.

I'm ADHD (Attention deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder), and contrary to what some think, it will throw off the validity of the score up to a point, because focus and concentration are essential to an accurate test, which is why a psychologist should list any possible distractions before or during a test, as that can be reflected in the overall score, most likely through an underestimation of actual potential.

Still, back to the point, our perception of intelligence is different than raw intelligence as measured by an I.Q.

I was a basketball player, and coached for awhile. I could recognize a "smart" player, because there are countless decisions that are made in micro-seconds during a play in a game. And you'll even hear announcers say, "What a smart play..."

I've known many basketball players who were not book smart, but were extremely street smart.

For instance, did you know that in playing basketball, you are making decisions based on comprehending human nature. What is the likelihood this person will pass the ball under the pressure of a two on one fast break?

How can I make him pick up the ball prematurely? Or, do I want him to keep the ball, and strip it from him?

Smart players always seem to make the right choices, and they are mentally ahead of the opposing player. To them it is quite a bit like chess. However, people who do not know the ins and outs of the game wouldn't know that. But one smart player knows another smart player.

Again, I'm saying this to strengthen the point that there is more to a person than an I.Q score will tell you.

[ChunkyC]

there is more to a person than an I.Q score will tell you
Amen to that.

One sign of genius (at least to me) is the ability to do something truly new. An example would be hockey's Wayne Gretzky. I read an interview with a veteran defenceman (I believe it was Bill White) who played against Gretzky during his rookie season, back in the early 1980s. Gretzky did something White had never seen before: he would carry the puck behind the net and stop there, and when a defenseman chased him, he'd come around the other side and get a shot off. So this wily old veteran decided not to chase him and stood out front and waited. Sure enough, Gretzky sees this and fires the puck off the guy's shins, banking it into the net for a goal.

White thought it was just a fluke, that Gretzky was trying to pass and hit him by accident -- until the next shift when Gretzky did it again. White said that at that moment, he knew this kid was something special. The NHL's record book shows just how right he was.

Because pro sports are so widely broadcast, they provide us with a good look at that kind of genius. How many folks are like that in every day life, folks who always seem to make the right decision or grasp the meaning of a difficult concept with seemingly no skull sweat at all?

The human mind is an awesome thing.

[Nateskate]

In general, there has always been a war of sorts between intellectualism and athleticism. And in this, people have made them competitors.

I've worked as a skills coach, and it is absolutely amazing what you can do with someone who is willing to learn.

However, those who truly excel at a sport, are often much more intelligent than people imagine.

In some sports positions, there is a great deal of thinking happening on the fly, (in real time). You can train a monkey to run some plays, but you can't train them to respond to infinite possibilities, and the complexities of reading human nature.

As a basketball player, I had to out think players who were more physically gifted than I was. And much of what I employed was psychological warfare, whether they knew it or not.

Next, you have to understand body mechanics. For instance, I'd train players by using a technique of convincing them how long it takes for muscle groups to recoil.

On offense, it is called, "Freezing the opponent". You get him to shift his body weight, and then you cut against the grain before he can physically change directions.

To do this, I'd have them shift their weight in any direction, or to go up on their tiptoes. And I'd tell them which way I was going to move next. That way they'd be able to anticipate my move. And what it taught them was that even if they knew what my next move was, once they shifted their weight, they were dead in the water, because it takes too long for the body to change direction once it commits.

In convincing them, I taught them to strike while the iron was hot, and not to waste time on thousands of fakes, since only one will do if you get the opponent to shift.

Sports can be a real intellectual endeavor.

[Euan Harvey]

It is said that we all only use about 10 percent of our actual brain potential, and I'm not quite certain that is true?
It's not true. (http://www.theness.com/articles/brain-nejs0201.html)

[William Blake Bradbury]

Coupla things: since we're all doing the IQ thing, I weigh in at a towering 67 (no joke, when it comes to candle power, I'm a propane-powered Roman cannon cracker, baby). Yes, double digits. I am your intellectual emperor lord, prostrate and tremble.

Another thing: I hate to nitpick, but it's "Frasier," not "Frazier." Then again, your verbal faux pas is only to be expected, seeing how you're not a double-digit dynamo like yours truly<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif" />

[Nateskate]

Your native intelligence is much higher than that I.Q score reflects. For one, your abstract reasoning is far above that level of intelligence, as reflected in your answer. Someone with an I.Q in the 60s would not even get what you said, let alone think of it.

And you wouldn't have noticed the Frazier/Frasier thing.

You are certainly not Mildly Mentally Retarded. I'd guess from your answer your actual I.Q is at least above average.

[mr mistook]

Below a quote from here... (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/AniciaNdabahaliye2.shtml)

The brain's billions of neurons connect with one another in complex networks. All physical and mental functioning depends on the establishment and maintenance of neuron networks. A person's habits and skills -- such as nail-biting or playing a musical instrument -- become embedded within the brain in frequently activated neuron networks.


There are 100 billion neurons in the human brain. The number of possible networks between these neurons exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. There is no way a person could ever live long enough to use even 1% of their brain's capacity.

(Cue eerie music)

[maestrowork]

I don't know the validity of IQ, actually. I mean, my high school friends and I scored in the 140-160 range, but none of us are rocket scientists or Nobel Prize winners or the next Bill Gates. I think IQ shows us what the potential is, but it doesn't really guage real practical intelligence, and certainly not common sense, wisdom or anything like that.

[mr mistook]

On offense, it is called, "Freezing the opponent". You get him to shift his body weight, and then you cut against the grain before he can physically change directions.


What's it called on defense?

[Crusader]

What's it called on defense?

As a defensive-minded player, i would say the same principle applies. For example: when guarding the low post, i would deliberately overplay the opponent with my body at times, letting them think i was off-balance, trying to lure them in one direction. The gambit can 'freeze' the offensive player both physically and mentally, if they commit to a shot that they don't realize i'm waiting for; by the time they realize that i'm in fact all too ready to challenge their attempt, it's too late... they're locked into the momentum of their move and cannot regain their dribble or make another fake.

Another version is "pulling the chair"; Charles Barkley was notable for the manuever, he used it on bigger post players who tried to back him down to shoot over him. Basically, he would brace himself against the player's initial few bumps, then suddenly he'd jump backwards. The offensive player would be expecting contact, and so they'd commit... only to bump against thin air, thereby losing balance enroute to a traveling violation.

One more method is a bit dirty, it's known as 'touching the elbow'. Basically, the defender plays close defense on a shooter, hands up and everything, but lets them shoot--while the defender sneaks in a fingertip touch upon the shooter's elbow or forearm. If it works, it messes up the shooter's mind and rhythm, since they commit to what seems to be a conceded shot, only to get disrupted midway through.

[William Blake Bradbury]

my grandmother, who has much greater ambitions for her grandchildren than for herself, coerced me into taking that IQ test. I actually did worse than I intended. I was aiming for a perfect 100, but overdid it in my stupid answers. Actually, I didn't have to fake too terribly in regard to the logic tests. Then again, as for the reliability of these things, my next-to-next-door neighbor's kid claims to have an IQ of 157 and he wore sweat pants to a bar mitzvah:rolleyes

[Euan Harvey]

There are 100 billion neurons in the human brain. The number of possible networks between these neurons exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. There is no way a person could ever live long enough to use even 1% of their brain's capacity.
Doesn't follow. Not using all possible states of the brain does not mean not using the brain's whole potential. It's equivalent to saying that unless you use every single combination of 1s and 0s on your 4gb hard drive (a very very large number), then you're not using the full capacity of your hard drive.

[Nateskate]

Your I.Q is not in the 60s, unless someone is not only typing for you, but actually thinking up the answers you are giving as well. I can tell by the way you write and think that you actually I.Q is much higher.

What could have caused a suppression of your I.Q score? Many things. It could have been anxiety. Some people simply don't do well on tests. A Psychologist would pick up the difference.

Other things like a specific learning impairment, which is not the same as a low I.Q, like dyslexia, can suppress an I.Q score. Depression can suppress the score. Distractions of any kind can also do the same.

You could not comprehend a single one of these posts with a true I.Q in the sixties. If you are following the gist of what is being said on these posts, you likely have an I.Q in the average range.

[ChunkyC]

I think sports is a great example of how intelligence wins out over raw physical ability. To take Gretzky again: he was not the fastest skater, nor did he have the hardest shot. He was considered too small. In fact, he was probably average on most of the yardsticks used to measure performance in the game. What he had that no one else in the history of the game had was his brain.

Which is why he became the most dominant player in any professional sport in history.

[Nateskate]

Unfortunately some people don't appreciate that intelligence and sports can go together. But in a sense, people won't learn a sport simply to figure out that some pretty interesting individual strategies are involved.

Yet, for those who appreciate a sport, there is nothing as enjoyable as watching an intelligent player and how they out-wit their opponent.

[ChunkyC]

for those who appreciate a sport, there is nothing as enjoyable as watching an intelligent player and how they out-wit their opponent.
You bet! I don't know about basketball, but in hockey when a forward 'fakes' out a defenseman like you described in basketball, it's referred to as "undressing him". I played defense and I know how embarassing it is to be outsmarted like that. Repeatedly. :b

[mr mistook]

Doesn't follow. Not using all possible states of the brain does not mean not using the brain's whole potential. It's equivalent to saying that unless you use every single combination of 1s and 0s on your 4gb hard drive (a very very large number), then you're not using the full capacity of your hard drive.

You can't compare a hard drive to a brain. The brain is much more than a storage device, but even if we only consider it as a storage device, there is no way a person could ever come close to "filling" the brain with memories. So at least in that sense, you only use a small percentage of your brain's "potential"

You're saying that since we've mapped every lobe of the brain, and named it's function - and since all normal specimens are seen to use all these areas in daily life, that the brain is being used to it's full potential.

Compare this to the body. We've mapped every limb and organ, and the average couch potato uses every limb and organ as he sits on the couch for 14 hours watching TV and eating chips. Is he using his body to it's full potential? Harldly.

[Nateskate]

Back to the topic. The initial premise was not, "What constitutes intelligence?"

The question was merely, "Which intelligent expression suits your own tastes?"

I think I write in a rather meat and potatoes fashion. Then again, I may not be nearly as intelligent as most readers or writers, it just works for me.

If you take "Author Intentions" out of the mix, assuming that a book is not merely an arrogant attempt at self-aggrandizement, or a cry for approval from a ninth grade grammar teacher who said, "use bigger words", and this is simply how they speak, what do you prefer?

I'm not sure that I prefer only meat and potatoes at all, but I do know that there is a flowing style that I prefer, where I'm not tripped up by someone who has memorized a thesaurus

[maestrowork]

I'd just share one of my readers' comments on my first novel: ;)

This manuscript probably falls most solidly into the genre of popular fiction. It’s way above the romance novel or the guy’s adventure story in quality, though, which puts it also on the cusp of literature. This edge-walking is both a potential asset and a potential problem for reader and writer as it demands not only accessibility but also a certain level of language and structure. I think you’re balancing very well. Example: Allusions to both pop and higher-brow culture – When to pop culture, they are not derogatory; when to higher-brow, they are neither pompous nor dumbed-down. An example, though not exactly parallel, is the comedy of Dennis Miller. He creates a space, a library if you will which has both Milton and the Marx brothers on its shelves. Another example: the poetry of Billy Collins. He remains accessible, often hilarious, often poignant, while peppering his poems with both the daily (e.g. watching Donald Duck cartoons during a hangover) and the scholarly (e.g. discussing the translation of a medieval haiku). Welcome to the club.

[mr mistook]

My only use for a thesaurus is in avoiding the repetition of a word. If for some reason, I need to refer to the same thing twice, I may look to the thesaurus for a clue as to avoiding redundancy. Too look smart? No. to avoid flunking-out on my reader, yes.

I use the dictionary for similar reasons. Every once in a while, my brain will call up a word that I'm not sure really fits the context, so I look it up to make sure i'm using it right. I also use a dictionary for spelling.

As for self-aggrandizing authors, I agree. Nothing is more off-putting than a cryptic, pseudo-symbolic spynx.

[Euan Harvey]

You can't compare a hard drive to a brain.
Sure I can, I just did. :D

Okay, to be a little more serious:

Do we only use 10% of our brain? -- no, absolutely not.

Do most of use not live up to our full potential? -- No, I don't think we do.

So I think we probably agree on the important thing. :D

[Nateskate]

I think that using Dennis Miller to illustrate the point is excellent, and that is probably a very reasonable example of someone who is high brow enough to be interesting, but not pompous, at least not in terms of going high above the listeners head.