Writing On writing intelligent characters.

[CupcakeNinja]

Being an asshole in general cuts you off from sources of information. This, in turn, means that said person is not using the most optimal strategy to feed their driving need to know more things in order to satisfy the natural curiosity that is one of the defining traits of intelligent people.

It's possible for them to be an asshole to specific people, or to be an asshole only some of the time (in the case of those with bipolar disorder), but if they are an asshole in general then they're not actually a genuinely intelligent person. Maybe they have a high IQ and the capability of gaining intelligence, but their powerful brain is either in an immature state or just stunted due to some kind of disorder.

They will usually not be very successful, either due to a direct cause of their ass-hole nature causing them to loose connections and thus sabotaging themselves or due to an indirect common cause of whatever mental disorder they have that's causing them to act like an asshole also hampering their ability to be successful.

High-performance and successful intelligent people almost universally come off as humble.

yeah but their success or lackthereof doesnt matter here, does it? The question is if they're intelligent, which they would be despite what path their attitudes lead them to later on.

Not every intelligent person is going to have the motivations you're listing or the personality traits you discussed. Maybe the most successful and intelligent people are often humble and down to earth, but your average elite who went to famous universities and are working in highly lucrative and competitive jobs were probably not seeking knowledge due to any innate curiosity. They were just highly driven and have studied hard to achieve their desired goal in life.

Are we gonna say they arent "genuinely" intelligent just because they dont have that thirst for knowledge for its own sake? Like, there's a difference between someone with a passion for a subject like medicine or technology, and a person who only chose to go into the field of medicine for the money and status symbol. But their attitudes and motives aside, they'd both be "intelligent".

 

[Jemini]

Three things.
If this is such an overwhelmingly common trait in intelligent people it makes a character relevantly less realistic, where does all this content on the traits of intelligence come from? The people themselves don't toot their own horn by definition, the others would rather praise themselves.
Putting humility on a pedestal is self-defeating.

The second thing is a repetition of my original post. Intelligence is a concept too elusive and spongy to establish it against someone's will. If I want to doubt someone's capabilities because I don't like them (for example because they're self-important, arrogant asshats), I can move around the goalpost until they no longer reach it, and because everyone's doing the "but that's not actually what intelligence is about" thing, nobody can fault me without room for doubt. Putting people up works in much the same way.
All the statistics touched upon in the video have had to define their own metric of what intelligence is and the results are as indicative as your unconditional agreement with that premise.

The third is that realism has no value of its own in writing. Hubris is perhaps the most straightforward flaw to give a competent character.
You could reasonably argue that it's overused or that you simply don't like it, but I'll be honest: None of the descriptions you included made me want to read the respective works and I dislike arrogant "geniuses" myself.

The content of your objection here is the exact reason why the false stereotypes of intelligent people being braggadocios ass-holes has persisted for so long and it's only now in this age of the internet that people are just starting to realize the old stereotypes are all wrong.

As for defining intelligence, we can do that pretty easily actually. It is a person who has a broad range of knowledge which they can demonstrate and apply, and has the ability to use that knowledge to become successful. It is a combination of IQ (problem-solving and reasoning ability) EQ (emotional intelligence) and wisdom, and causes the person to be equipped with all the tools they need to succeed (except maybe luck).

Intelligence is associated with, but not defined by, success. There is a possibility for a dumb person to be lifted up into a position of success due to various factors, and there is a chance for an intelligent person to be unlucky and be unable to succeed. However, in 9 out of 10 cases, it will be that the intelligent person succeeds where the less intelligent person fails.

With all due respect that sounds a bit... how should I put it, it doesn't feel like a legit argument pro your position. I think it was called strawman but I don't really know. It's like "imagine this thing. What do you mean it exists in reality, I said imagine. Yes, in this imaginary thing it wouldn't work thus I am right".
Besides, the ability to acquire knowledge from written sources of information is something I would say more characteristic of an intelligent person than something like being humble or sociable.
A person who is an asshole is thus absolutely capable of acquiring knowledge, even if they cannot hold a conversation

This is yet another false stereotype. Written sources are an association built from the times when books were a resource limited to the uber wealthy, and it has failed to go away even after the printing press was invented and brought the prices of books down.

In reality, the absolute most intelligent people out there are the ones who talk and listen to the other people around them. In these days, you can also get by listening to podcasts. The point is, you get exposed to the opinions of others and gain the ability to see things from other people's perspectives. This gives you a broader and richer view of the world and a better ability to envision the problems that exist in the world.

Intelligent people are problem solvers by nature, and they like to solve problems in the real world that are of a nature no book or article written on the internet can ever tell them about. Genuinely intelligent people will do their own research and gather their own data. This involves going into the field and working with people. This is something that's absolutely impossible for an asshole.

Also, you failing to understand my argument does not make it a logic fallacy. Also, you got the wrong fallacy. A strawman is when you do not have an intellectual opponent in front of you, so you make up a representation of the other side of the argument and deliberately use the weakest form of the other side's arguments. I think the fallacy you were looking for might have been "no true Scotsman," but that doesn't actually apply either. The only potential fallacy that you could have applied to my argument there is "moving the goalposts," but to that I will just respond that my argument was not clear enough before and I simply clarified it.

Now that I gave a definition of intelligence to @Zirrboy , my argument has been properly clarified and detailed out. In this state, it will become moving the goalposts if I change it again. However, what I did in response to Cupcake Ninja was just clarifying my argument.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

The content of your objection here is the exact reason why the false stereotypes of intelligent people being braggadocios ass-holes has persisted for so long and it's only now in this age of the internet that people are just starting to realize the old stereotypes are all wrong.

As for defining intelligence, we can do that pretty easily actually. It is a person who has a broad range of knowledge which they can demonstrate and apply, and has the ability to use that knowledge to become successful. It is a combination of IQ (problem-solving and reasoning ability) EQ (emotional intelligence) and wisdom, and causes the person to be equipped with all the tools they need to succeed (except maybe luck).

Intelligence is associated with, but not defined by, success. There is a possibility for a dumb person to be lifted up into a position of success due to various factors, and there is a chance for an intelligent person to be unlucky and be unable to succeed. However, in 9 out of 10 cases, it will be that the intelligent person succeeds where the less intelligent person fails.



This is yet another false stereotype. Written sources are an association built from the times when books were a resource limited to the uber wealthy, and it has failed to go away even after the printing press was invented and brought the prices of books down.

In reality, the absolute most intelligent people out there are the ones who talk and listen to the other people around them. In these days, you can also get by listening to podcasts. The point is, you get exposed to the opinions of others and gain the ability to see things from other people's perspectives. This gives you a broader and richer view of the world and a better ability to envision the problems that exist in the world.

Intelligent people are problem solvers by nature, and they like to solve problems in the real world that are of a nature no book or article written on the internet can ever tell them about. Genuinely intelligent people will do their own research and gather their own data. This involves going into the field and working with people. This is something that's absolutely impossible for an asshole.

Also, you failing to understand my argument does not make it a logic fallacy. Also, you got the wrong fallacy. A strawman is when you do not have an intellectual opponent in front of you, so you make up a representation of the other side of the argument and deliberately use the weakest form of the other side's arguments. I think the fallacy you were looking for might have been "no true Scotsman," but that doesn't actually apply either. The only potential fallacy that you could have applied to my argument there is "moving the goalposts," but to that I will just respond that my argument was not clear enough before and I simply clarified it.

Now that I gave a definition of intelligence to @Zirrboy , my argument has been properly clarified and detailed out. In this state, it will become moving the goalposts if I change it again. However, what I did in response to Cupcake Ninja was just clarifying my argument.

pretty sure its not that he didnt understand your argument so much as disagreeing with your definition of what makes a person "genuinely intelligent"

 

[Jemini]

pretty sure its not that he didnt understand your argument so much as disagreeing with your definition of what makes a person "genuinely intelligent"

He was talking about logic fallacies, and mischaracterizing my argument in doing so. You don't do that if you understand the argument... unless you're an asshole.

 

[TotallyHuman]

In reality, the absolute most intelligent people out there are the ones who talk and listen to the other people around them. In these days, you can also get by listening to podcasts. The point is, you get exposed to the opinions of others and gain the ability to see things from other people's perspectives. This gives you a broader and richer view of the world and a better ability to envision the problems that exist in the world

No, you cannot, in fact, get by by listening to podcasts. But even if you could, does being an asshole forbid you from listening to one?

Intelligent people are problem solvers by nature, and they like to solve problems in the real world that are of a nature no book or article written on the internet can ever tell them about. Genuinely intelligent people will do their own research and gather their own data. This involves going into the field and working with people. This is something that's absolutely impossible for an asshole.

It seems that you tend to severely undervalue written sources. If every smart person had to gather their own data (gathering data is actually not very correct here as in, data is information expressed numerically and for it to be accurate it has to be in large qualities, so let's just go with information) they would never get anything done. Does everyone have to invent their own wheel and their own bicycle? Whether that be philosophical arguments, scientific research, or even pure life wisdom - it can and is conveyed through writing. I never thought I'd have to tell that to someone on a writing forum of all places. Much less a writer.
Real life is not some Lovecraftian abomination too eldrich to be described through words as it escapes the very fabric of human cognition thus is not describable.
No, if it is a thought, it can (and probably has been) put into words. Being exposed to different opinions, putting oneself in others' shoes - it takes to read one not-too-bad book to know that it is possible through reading and I outright refuse to believe you don't know it.
But if it is learning in the field you are talking about, can you even say, in good conscience, that a "natural problem solver" can somehow pick everything needed to be successful (though I still refuse to associate intelligence and success) in any particular field in the modern world? A doctor has to read (not listen to podcasts) tall piles of books to become a good doctor (though admittedly a good doctor will not be an asshole so that's a bit off point but I am talking about "learning in the field" and "gathering their own data")
I much agree with the idea that an intelligent person will have to apply their knowledge to real life and cross-validate their hypotheses created from the world views to real life situations - but that's because that's what everyone has to do, regardless of how intelligent they are.
Of course, you'd expect (key word expect) an intelligent person to admit they are wrong and move on to reorganise their system of knowledge faster than a not-as-intelligent counterpart - but that does not say anything about them somehow being more inclined to acting in the field more.

 

[Ilikewaterkusa]

I have always been aware there are a lot of myths in regards to intelligence, but bringing up the subject in another thread and sharing my experience with it has shown me in terms of the responses that people's immersion in the myths is worse than I thought.

Therefore, I decided I would share this video from a psyche-oriented channel on Youtube that goes over some traits strongly associated with people who are genuinely really smart.

Pay the most attention to the part right at the beginning where it says smart people tend to think they're average and no smarter than anyone else. Meanwhile, the people who boast about their intelligence are usually fairly average in reality. It's the paradoxical reality that's most likely the origin of most of the misunderstanding in regards to intelligence. It's the result of average people who think they're smart figuring that real smart people think the same way they do. Well, this is wrong. It couldn't be farther from the truth.

In order to help out in getting a better idea of what real intelligent people look like, I'll also go into a few good examples from fiction that you can consider.

Ferdinand (Ascendance of a Bookworm):

This man might very well be the single #1 most intelligent character in fiction so far as I'm aware. He is severely limited in his impact on the world by the fact that he had a horrible case of "evil step-mother" syndrome, but despite the harsh oppression he faced he still managed to pretty much manipulate the entire kingdom to his favor more or less without leaving the temple.

Mine (Ascendance of a Bookworm):

She is not as intelligent as Ferdinand, but she is still REALLY high up there on the intelligence scale. (This is good, because she's the MC of the series, and it's helpful if there's another person above the MC in their own specialty for the sake of balancing out the character.) She as that natural curiosity down pat... err... no, who am I kidding. She takes it to such a ridiculous excess that even Ferdinand calls her a book-loving gremlin, as do several fans of the series. She also has that attitude where she does not get set back by her failures (and she has a lot of failures) but she gets back up after them and tries new approaches to her problems until something finally works.

She gets better results than Ferdinand, but most of this is because she is 1. Supported by her previous-life knowledge, 2. Does not face the same obstacles as Ferdinand because most of her obstacles have been cleared for her, and 3. She has Ferdinand for a mentor actually helping her to gain knowledge and training faster.

Rudeus Greyrat (Mushoku Tensei):

He's a perfect example of a genuinely intelligent character who absolutely does not regard himself as being intelligent. There are several times through the series where he arrives at conclusions that are not obvious to anyone but him, but after he says them the audience can sorta piece together the fact that he did indeed have the information necessary to arrive at that conclusion and it wasn't an author cheat to give it to him.

He gets help from a lot of people along his journey, and he faces failure again and again. But, he's somehow able to keep a positive attitude through it and aside from feeding his vices (mostly to do with perversion) he tends to avoid unnecessary actions that would get him in trouble. (Let's face it, his perversion vices get him into enough trouble, so it's good he doesn't do panicky stupid things in bad situations that would create even more trouble.)

There is even a scene around mid series where he's called out as being a genius. His reaction to this call-out is exactly the reaction a true genius would have to this sort of call-out. He is genuinely confused at why this person's calling him a genius. Because, after all, from his perspective he's no different at all from anybody else. He can only see the spots where he failed in his life due to stupid mistakes, and he knows for a fact there are people who are stronger and better than him in the world. So, to him, that means he's nothing great. This is not a self-esteem issue... (well, maybe you can argue it is,) this is actually a very normal and relatable trait shared by all genuinely intelligent people in the world.

(I had more character examples in mind when I started writing this, but now they've completely skipped my mind. I guess I'm exhausted from writing out explanations on 3 characters, so I'll leave it at that for now.)

Just watch several Keith Woods videos and you should be able to do this

 

[TotallyHuman]

He was talking about logic fallacies, and mischaracterizing my argument in doing so. You don't do that if you understand the argument... unless you're an asshole.

Well, I didn't put the correct label on it - which I myself wrote that I probably didn't. But the essence of my question (I guess it was a question?) was this

Being an asshole in general cuts you off from sources of information. This, in turn, means that said person is not using the most optimal strategy to feed their driving need to know more things in order to satisfy the natural curiosity that is one of the defining traits of intelligent people.

imagine this thing. What do you mean it exists in reality, I said imagine. Yes, in this imaginary thing it wouldn't work thus I am right

to which you answered

Also, you failing to understand my argument does not make it a logic fallacy.

which didn't explain why I was wrong except for you saying that I was...

 

[CupcakeNinja]

No, you cannot, in fact, get by by listening to podcasts. But even if you could, does being an asshole forbid you from listening to one?

well i mean before groups of people learned how to use written language, knowledge was passed down by word of mouth or by actually showing a person how to do a certain task. So...you CAN get by just by listening to videos

 

[TotallyHuman]

well i mean before groups of people learned how to use written language, knowledge was passed down by word of mouth or by actually showing a person how to do a certain task. So...you CAN get by just by listening to videos

But the tasks performed back then and now are different. Of course, technically you can - but realistically? Nada

 

[CupcakeNinja]

But the tasks performed back then and now are different. Of course, technically you can - but realistically? Nada

meh, its harder but not impossible. I've even known people who were successful painters despite having lost control of all their limbs due to accidents or ailments. Compared to that, living decently without being able to read is much easier. Probably easier in the modern world than any other time period, because you have organizations that provide all kinds of aid to the physically or mentally impaired

so i wouldnt say thats unrealistic, either. But i see your point. Plus, people who lack the motivation and drive to work around their disabilities will only get so far. I'd say most people in general would just give up or live very poorly instead of becoming success stories.

Like me, if i ever lost the ability to read, write or lost a limb...like nah fam, just put me down. I am one spoiled, weak little bitch. My attachment to life has been tenuous since day one, no way am i gonna try living without all my limbs intact. Or if i cant write anymore.

Had that shit happen once when i had a hand injury when i was younger. Family just dropped me off at the clinic and bounced. Was tryna fill out my paperwork and damn near broke down just tryna write my own name with a fucked up hand then tried using my non-dominant hand and looked down at my shitty scrawling and almost fucking cried over it smh.

Suffice it to say, not all of us have the same drive as that lady with the messed up spinal cords using her mouth to paint

 

[Zirrboy]

The content of your objection here is the exact reason why the false stereotypes of intelligent people being braggadocios ass-holes has persisted for so long and it's only now in this age of the internet that people are just starting to realize the old stereotypes are all wrong.

"People" are still as susceptible to emotional convenience though. Which leads me to this.

If this is such an overwhelmingly common trait in intelligent people it makes a character relevantly less realistic, where does all this content on the traits of intelligence come from? The people themselves don't toot their own horn by definition, the others would rather praise themselves.
Putting humility on a pedestal is self-defeating.

The video exclusively talks in third person. It's neither by people who define themselves as such, nor addressing them with the intention to help with the challenges it outlines. So it either decided how intelligent people should be perceived outside of their own decision, or it's veiled circle-jerking.

Spoiler: pettiness

I'm just barely over a 115 IQ. This places me in the "above average" intelligence bracket, and in the top 15th percentile of intelligence world-wide. However, when I hear the term "you are in the top 15th percentile," somehow in my mind this translates to "15% of the world's population is smarter than you are." And, somehow I wind up assuming that the other 85% of the world's population is at the same level of intelligence as I am. I know logically that it doesn't work that way at all, but I am simply unable to stop seeing the world that way. As a result of this, I identify with the protagonist of this story a lot, and thought it would be a good point to share with people on how to accurately portray an intelligent character.

As for defining intelligence, we can do that pretty easily actually. It is a person who has a broad range of knowledge which they can demonstrate and apply, and has the ability to use that knowledge to become successful. It is a combination of IQ (problem-solving and reasoning ability) EQ (emotional intelligence) and wisdom, and causes the person to be equipped with all the tools they need to succeed (except maybe luck).

This is more or less the definition I assumed in my original post. Except broadness of knowledge maybe, but it doesn't affect my point much.
It either assumes that all these traits will appear in the same intensity, which I fundamentally disagree with, or leaves me to leverage weighting of individual aspects at my leisure. Interpretation of details is open to me in both cases.
How do you measure success? Do we measure peak performance, however rare and situational it might be in a given subject, or long term capabilities?

Intelligence is associated with, but not defined by, success. There is a possibility for a dumb person to be lifted up into a position of success due to various factors, and there is a chance for an intelligent person to be unlucky and be unable to succeed. However, in 9 out of 10 cases, it will be that the intelligent person succeeds where the less intelligent person fails.

The video seemed to hold a quite different view on that, so what exactly am I to draw from it?

 

[Jemini]

No, you cannot, in fact, get by by listening to podcasts. But even if you could, does being an asshole forbid you from listening to one?

Wow. Way to take my quote out of context. I said the thing that listening to others gains you is empathy and the ability to understand things from other's perspectives, along with the ability to gain a broader understanding of the world. Yes, you absolutely can gain the latter from podcasts even more effectively than speaking face to face with the people in your own social circle. Speaking face to face is better for the former, but you can also get by on it somewhat from podcasts.

It seems that you tend to severely undervalue written sources...

I'm going to clip this here because the rest of your quote was just elaborating on this point. (See, I read your full post and understood it properly before clipping it, and addressed the context as well.)

No, I am not undervaluing written sources. They have their place, and you can learn from them. What I'm saying is that you can get by without written sources (though I wouldn't recommend it) but you absolutely CANNOT get by without a social network of connected people and sources of human information if you want to build up an effective enough basis of knowledge that will allow you to advance the field in your area of expertise or find the solutions to unknown problems. Social connections are also how you get ahead in the business world.

About the only area you don't need social connections in would be if you are doing grunt work for some company. That's what you'll be relegated to if you're an asshole, and no properly intelligent person would cut off their own avenues for advancement like that.

Also, yes, if you're advancing the field or solving unique problems, you absolutely have to gather your own data and no book will tell you the answer.

There, I have added back in all the context you stripped out of my argument. This wasn't even a clarification as I gave to Cupcake Ninja. You stripped my argument of context, and I just added it back in. Please do not do that again.

But the tasks performed back then and now are different. Of course, technically you can - but realistically? Nada

You undervalue the oral tradition here. There have been anecdotal events in which archeologists encountered groups that have a passed down oral history and managed to hear details on the ruins they were trying to study. Some of these cases involved under-sea ruins from 10,000 years ago (the end of the last ice-age), and these people were able to actually draw a map of these sunken ruins from their oral history for the archeologists to follow.

Mind you, these were the first archeologists to find these ruins, and yet these exact maps of the ruins existed in the oral traditions of these people, and it was confirmed when they found the ruins that the maps were accurate.

That's likely the single most impressive feat of oral traditions, and illustrative of what it's capable of. However, there's also been research that people who live in societies with written language tend to have far worse memory than people with an oral tradition as they do not properly develop the memory center of their brains like those who have an oral tradition do. And, the level of detail in things they can remember and recount are quite extraordinary. I've been blessed with a very powerful memory compared to others, but the things someone with an oral tradition can do would make my memory look horridly shoddy by comparison.

You are living in your own universe, my friend. You seem like the exact sort of person who can stand to broaden your horizons by listening to some podcasts.

which didn't explain why I was wrong except for you saying that I was...

I don't need to explain why you were wrong when I already explained your argument was not even relevant to what I said in the first place. Irrelevant to my point = does not warrant a response.

This is more or less the definition I assumed in my original post. Except broadness of knowledge maybe, but it doesn't affect my point much.
It either assumes that all these traits will appear in the same intensity, which I fundamentally disagree with, or leaves me to leverage weighting of individual aspects at my leisure. Interpretation of details is open to me in both cases.
How do you measure success? Do we measure peak performance, however rare and situational it might be in a given subject, or long term capabilities?

Simple, you measure success by comparing it to the average in the field. The quality of a person's performance in whatever the success metrics are for a given field (pick literally any field) are positively correlated with IQ, EQ, and having a broad field of information on various subjects. (Even subjects unrelated to the field in question.) Any of those areas taken independently all show this correlation.

In other words, you can literally define success any way you want. Someone with higher intelligence by whatever metric of intelligence measurement you want to use will succeed more often than people with lower intelligence in those metrics. If you find any metric that measures intelligence, it will always positively correlate to any measurable indicator of success you want to define.

Now then, because you had your self-admitted spheel of pettiness, I think I will choose to demonstrate exactly what I was talking about in terms of how being an asshole cuts off your social connections and no longer respond to any further arguments you make on this subject. (Seriously, the relevance of bringing that up was? I'm not even sure, and I am honestly not insulted nor do I know why what you posted should be considered an insult by anyone. But, it is obvious you meant it in some sort of mean-spirited way, and as such I feel it is necessary to respond to your intent rather than the content of your speech on this one. That intent was clearly negative.)

EDIT: I will also consider any response to me beyond a direct reply to this 1 message to be stocking and further evidence of negative intent toward me. In other words, as I have stated my intentions clearly, I will allow you the last word in response to this post you are currently reading, which I will not respond to regardless of what's said, and then I will ask you not to respond to me in this thread anymore or else I will report you for harassment. (I am not asking you to get out of this thread either. You can respond to others, you just may not respond to me or talk about me any further after the 1 response I have allowed for. Also, I will consider you talking about your views on a subject that only I have brought up in the thread as though it were self-prompted to be you responding to me while attempting to evade the terms of my language on the subject. In other words, I will allow for no further pettiness.)

(Also, if you edit your post to delete that petty portion, I will edit this post to re-post the exact same quote you snipped from me on that other thread.)

 

[Zirrboy]

Simple, you measure success by comparing it to the average in the field. The rate of a person's performance in whatever the success metrics are for a given field (pick literally any field) are positively correlated with IQ, EQ, and having a broad field of information on various subjects. (Even subjects unrelated to the field in question.) Any of those areas taken independently show this correlation.

In other words, you can literally define success any way you want. Someone with higher intelligence by whatever metric of intelligence measurement you want to use will succeed more often than people with lower intelligence in those metrics.

"The average" might have vastly different goals approaching a field though, making the comparison based on interpretation of the evaluator.
The wriggle room remains, the way I see it.

Seriously, the relevance of bringing that up was? I'm not even sure, and I am honestly not insulted nor do I know why what you posted should be considered an insult by anyone

The remark directly above it in conjunction with the main topic: Humility of the intelligent

 

[Jemini]

"The average" might have vastly different goals approaching a field though, making the comparison based on interpretation of the evaluator.
The wriggle room remains, the way I see it.


The remark directly above it in conjunction with the main topic: Humility of the intelligent

Alright. I said I wouldn't reply, but I was editing that last portion of my response like crazy so I think it is only fair to you if I at least point out, yes, I edited that last portion of my post a lot and there's a good chance you might not have seen it in it's state as it is now.

I have it in the state I like it in now, and will not edit it any further. Now, as promised, I will not actually address anything you actually said here in order to preserve the spirit of what I said even though I had to violate the letter of it in order to give you this friendly heads-up. I will carry out what I said there.

 

[K5Rakitan]

That video gives me vibes of, "You don't know you're beautiful, and that what's makes you beautiful." But now you know you're beautiful, so you're no longer beautiful.

 

[melchi]

While I would agree Ferdinand is absolutely big brain, Mine I'm not sure. The only reason she is so successful is because people are helping her. Her life in her Urano days and the fact that her mom was really big into crafting gave her a lot of unique skills that she can bring into her second life. Socially though she is super poor at navigating noble society. Much of her success is due to the people around her in the later parts of the book.

Senku in dr. stone is someone who I would say is a genius.

I might say the same thing for the count of monte cristo.

 

[hijauKuning]

This thread is a fine consequence of what happen when you start something with "real x is like this" and also you don't add "but of course it's not always like this irl" disclaimer.

I must say this is a "I know that I know nothing" hell.

That video gives me vibes of, "You don't know you're beautiful, and that what's makes you beautiful." But now you know you're beautiful, so you're no longer beautiful.

A fickle situation when you believe a stupid person is someone who thinks they're smart, then conclude that the vice versa situation should be true too. Our self-awareness is a mistake. I wonder if I knew I'm ugly, would I automatically become beautiful?

 

[Jemini]

While I would agree Ferdinand is absolutely big brain, Mine I'm not sure. The only reason she is so successful is because people are helping her. Her life in her Urano days and the fact that her mom was really big into crafting gave her a lot of unique skills that she can bring into her second life. Socially though she is super poor at navigating noble society. Much of her success is due to the people around her in the later parts of the book.

1. She is able to remember and implement things she has learned from Earth that the average person would have no chance of remembering. Would you know how to make shampoo?
2. She is very aware of educational theory and using rewards for motivation. That's NOT a common skill even here in modern day, and she has a talent for spotting it when someone needs a certain kind of reinforcement.
3. She's able to keep up with Ferdinand. I should say "enough said" there, but this is very much an instance of where I don't think the average reader of this series is putting themselves in the character's shoes well enough. Even if you have a genius teacher instructing you, you've gotta have quite a bit of intelligence yourself in order to follow the lessons.
4. She is able to remember the facts she reads from her books. Given the sheer number of books she reads, that's an accomplishment.
5. All of her Ditter strategies were thought up 100% by her without help from anyone. She has a zero loss record at Ditter. This is made even more impressive by the fact that she never once played Ditter against an opponent who could be considered anything other than top-level.
6. She demonstrates great long-term thinking skills in absolutely everything she does. This is indicative of a very well developed pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for this kind of long-term thinking.

I think that your issue preventing you from seeing Mine as a highly intelligent person here is specifically because Mine is the POV character. So, you are biased by her perspective, in which she does not see herself as intelligent. Yes, she fails in some social areas, but her knowledge demonstrations and her problem-solving skills are pretty top-notch.

(Also, could help to be more familiar with some of the indicators of intelligence, such as long-term thinking, and be aware that this is also not actually a universal skill even here IRL.)

 

[Anon2024]

I’m going to start by asking how exactly you define “intelligence.”

Intelligence as measured by the IQ test is simply the speed at which the brain can process information. Those who can process information faster can wield larger amounts of information and thought processes faster than others.

However, intelligence doesn’t mean one can critically think.

Your example of Rudeus, I find he simply had low self-esteem and a lack of critical thinking in his first life which was probably why he was a NEET. When he started his second life the ability to process information and the life he had (his previous life) enabled him to think outside of rules and conventions (letting him think more critically about the world he lived in) rather than just doing what everyone else was doing.

As far as his actual intelligence and ability to process information, there are literally no examples I found of him having that without some special ability so I didn’t see him as an “intelligent” character.

1. She is able to remember and implement things she has learned from Earth that the average person would have no chance of remembering. Would you know how to make shampoo?

I can make soap.
Still, memorization isn’t “intelligence” since there are people with average or below average IQ who can be trained to make soap, shampoo, bricks and other things.

 

[melchi]

1.) I would argue that much of the stuff was due to her upbringing in her Urano days. Yes not many would know how to make shampoo. However her mom made a lot of stuff from scratch and taught her daughter. The fact that she remembers just means she's got a good memory. There is also some weird magic at work, remember when Ferdinand entered her memory with the artefact and she got to see things clearly that had faded from her mind?

2.) Again, her educational theory is not something she came up with. Like with point one she adapted something from earth to work in a new world.

3.) She is able to keep up with Ferdinand mostly because of her love of books. If the temple didn't have a library I doubt they would have even met. Anyone can be trained to do anything they just have to have enough grit to learn hard things that take a while to master.

4.) She's got a good memory this has been established over and over again. I don't agree the super ability of recall is genius.

5.) Her strategy at ditter is something else. However, I would say that top level ditter opponents are different then they were pre kingdom collapse. With speed ditter being the norm and people forgetting how ditter was before the culling means her bookishness in researching ditter gives her a much wider options of potential.

If she starts creating stuff that doesn't exist on earth that isn't an accident but merges it with the things she knows from her Urano days I would consider that genius. Where is our magical printing press? Where is a way for commoners to use magic tools? I know she made the invisible ink but it was more of a happy accident.