3 ms·
The converse fallacy is also, I believe, true. "This person knows how to do XYZ, therefore they're smart" (in a more general sense; good at "other games", as it
by miguelmurca 4y ago
The converse fallacy is also, I believe, true. "This person knows how to do XYZ, therefore they're smart" (in a more general sense; good at "other games", as it were), is something that took me time to understand to be false.
And I think your last paragraph reflects this fallacy:
> Real intelligence is the capacity for complexity, pattern recognition, and speed of cognition; none of these guarantee either of the two above conditions.
These are criteria I would give to be good at mathematics, not necessarily a kind person, or cultured person, or good team member.
Of course, I may be hair-splitting at what you mean by "smart" (and I'm sorry for that), but I think this is the angle the article is also taking.
- tremon 4y agoYou also need the same capacity for complexity, pattern recognition, and speed of cognition to be a good salesman, diplomat, or journalist: reading body language, picking up subtle cues and immediately changing your course of action during a conversation requires that same real intelligence. So to me, it's not so much hair-splitting as having a narrow focus of what those capacities can be used for.
- everdrive 4y ago>Of course, I may be hair-splitting at what you mean by "smart" (and I'm sorry for that), but I think this is the angle the article is also taking. That is not what I meant to convey, but there's also no need to be sorry. This is a pretty nuanced topic, and I only offered a few sentences. I would agree with you: it is very easy for people to misjudge the intelligence of others, especially when that intelligence falls in other "realms." (eg: mathematics vs. managerial skill, etc.) To that extent, I am simply agreeing with the article, and adding my own observations.