Sophisticated Intelligence vs Meat and Potatoes Intelligence

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!

Re: Sophisticated Intelligence vs Meat and Potatoes Intellig

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.

Re: Sophisticated Intelligence vs Meat and Potatoes Intellig

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).

Re: Sophisticated Intelligence vs Meat and Potatoes Intellig

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

Re: Sophisticated Intelligence vs Meat and Potatoes Intellig

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.

Re: Sophisticated Intelligence vs Meat and Potatoes Intellig

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.

Re: Sophisticated Intelligence vs Meat and Potatoes Intellig

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.

Re: Sophisticated Intelligence vs Meat and Potatoes Intellig

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.

Re: Sophisticated Intelligence vs Meat and Potatoes Intellig

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Think Solomon

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.

Re: Think Solomon

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.

Re: Think Solomon

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.

Re: Think Solomon

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).

Re: Think Solomon

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.

Re: Think Solomon

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.

Re: Think Solomon

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.

Re: Think Solomon

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.

Re: Think Solomon

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?)

Re: Think Solomon

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.

Re: Think Solomon

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.

Re: Think Solomon

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.

Re: Think Solomon

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?

Re: Think Solomon

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Knowledge, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Common Sense

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.

Re: Think Solomon

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.