I don't think anything you said is hostile. Perhaps I should have redrafted it better given that nature of of topic, I should have expected to be misunderstood

I don't think anything you said is hostile. Perhaps I should have redrafted it better given that nature of of topic, I should have expected to be misunderstood a bit. --- Firstly Caveat Lector: Yes generalization is a natural hazard of this topic and I am guilty as everyone else on this thread, we(and PG) are drawing conclusions basis anecdotal personal experiences and generalizing that obviously may not hold. Perhaps I should have called out explicitly, I assumed that is already implicitly clear in this topic. Everything I say[1] in this kind of topic is almost always a opinion or a best a theory. ---- The scale to me[2]: Not being smart[3] means everyone assumes you are their level or below them. A "little bit smart" means when some(many) people assume you know better than them. Crazy smart is people I cannot understand and are way smarter than I am. I am not saying general population, I am saying it is difficult to comprehend how much smarter[2] anyone else for any person independent of their own personal levels that is by kind of basic limitation of not being as smart as them, if you could understand the gap you would probably as smart as well. It doesn't matter if the first person is super smart already and other person is even smarter. This has an effect that people inherently under or overestimate[4] what the other person is capable of, that is what am alluding to. I don't have a knowledge on neuroscience to comment on that, however I absolutely do not have any interest in reading anymore psychology or debate with amateurs / professionals on it, my experience[5] interacting with the field : it is filled with pseudo-science (Yes including big names like Jung), every conventional term has always has different professional meaning which layman are expected to know fluently to discuss anything related, evidence/studies for many widely held theories is usually small sampled studies and typically math is at best basic linear regression models conflating correlation and causation . Psychology and Economics are two fields I consider a lot of waste of time trying to study for non professionals [6], Metaphysics or philosophy at least is fully abstract( like Math?), this mixing of reality with pretty weak science[7] makes a pretty bad combination. I understand that may makes me ignorant in some eyes. Sadly a lot of economic and workplace policy is determined by influential schools of thought in both fields, as everybody is affected by policy everyone has(should have) a opinion . ---- P.S. I didn't intend come across as aggressive/harsh or snide, but trying to be specific can come across has not being polite and snide, I am not that a gifted a writer(and English is not my first language) to write the same intent and make it sound better, apologies if it did not come out well. ---- [1] For that matter anyone else says including professionals, I can only claim for myself though. [2] This may not apply to others, I am not a professional to be able to generalize it, I am just sharing my anecdotal version. [3] Smart here and all other terms I am using is common sense definitions, kind of similar to "I will know it when I see it" obscenity definition by Potter in the Roth test. I don't have any expertise or interest in framing in formal narrow terms [4] In my experience [5] I can only talk about my personal experience, all of these are generalizations, am sure will have dozens of exceptions or completely opposite view points backed with solid evidence. It is statement of opinion not fact. [6] You( and the world) may a different opinion on this, I am not stating it as what everyone should also see it as, just how I see it, and I am fine not holding a consensus view [7] In my view