4 ms·

Yes, generally being successful at executing on things is a good indicator of intelligence, while failing to ever even attempt things is a mark of at least timi

Yes, generally being successful at executing on things is a good indicator of intelligence, while failing to ever even attempt things is a mark of at least timidity. A lot of internet users think being armchair generals makes them smart, but of course like fake nails it acts as a mark of someone on the outside who doesn't know any better.

jjulius 3y ago
>Yes, generally being successful at executing on things is a good indicator of intelligence, while failing to ever even attempt things is a mark of at least timidity. Being timid doesn't mean that you lack intelligence. But you're also missing the overall point that OP is making - just because you might be "successful at executing on things" doesn't mean that you are, as OP said, "smart in a broad way". No, it only means that you can finish a task. They're clearly (and they can step in and tell me I'm reading them wrong) referring to the fact that just because, say, Joe Schmo founded the world's first ride-sharing company and made billions in the process, a cult of personality develops and suddenly everyone thinks that Mr. Schmo is going to have a valid opinion on the housing crisis, or how to prevent war between Israel and Palestine, or how to reduce drug use, etc.
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  I understand what the parent is saying. But if you can execute on an idea then yes, you probably do have broad intelligence. You can manage people, file paperwork, perform your core business, strategize about the future, handle setbacks and so on. It's not like uber execs are only skilled in driving cars back and forth. They have and use all the required skills to successfully execute on an idea - which is a lot of skills! And yes, timidity is a strike against broad skills and capabilities because you grow skills by using them. If you're an armchair general then you've never actually grown your skills, you've only ever roleplayed. Actual engagement has costs and comes with losses, recovering from losses and trying new strategies. You can't just think about how to weave a basket and be a good basket weaver. You have to actually weave baskets and practice.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    >I understand what the parent is saying. Respectfully, I think you're still missing the point as demonstrated by your last sentence. >You can't just think about how to weave a basket and be a good basket weaver. You have to actually weave baskets and practice. ... right. Which is why OP was saying that it's a mistake to look to a basket weaving executive for their opinions on Ukraine vs Russia. Having skills necessary to succeed in your field of work, or your hobby, doesn't mean that you're smart in every other area. Yes, you are intelligent at a generally high level, but OP was referring to how successful execs are put on pedestals and whose opinions on all kinds of subjects well outside of their wheelhouse are often sought after.
    - vorpalhex 3y ago
      The whole point of generalized intelligence is that it's broadly applicable. That is my argument position and it is in direct contrast to what the parent is arguing that only specialized intelligence counts. In attempting to counter my argument, you are changing it in your restatement. An executive of a basket weaving company is fundamentally different than Jeff the reclusive basketweaver who can only weave baskets.

jjulius 3y ago

>Yes, generally being successful at executing on things is a good indicator of intelligence, while failing to ever even attempt things is a mark of at least timidity. Being timid doesn't mean that you lack intelligence. But you're also missing the overall point that OP is making - just because you might be "successful at executing on things" doesn't mean that you are, as OP said, "smart in a broad way". No, it only means that you can finish a task. They're clearly (and they can step in and tell me I'm reading them wrong) referring to the fact that just because, say, Joe Schmo founded the world's first ride-sharing company and made billions in the process, a cult of personality develops and suddenly everyone thinks that Mr. Schmo is going to have a valid opinion on the housing crisis, or how to prevent war between Israel and Palestine, or how to reduce drug use, etc.

vorpalhex 3y ago
I understand what the parent is saying. But if you can execute on an idea then yes, you probably do have broad intelligence. You can manage people, file paperwork, perform your core business, strategize about the future, handle setbacks and so on. It's not like uber execs are only skilled in driving cars back and forth. They have and use all the required skills to successfully execute on an idea - which is a lot of skills! And yes, timidity is a strike against broad skills and capabilities because you grow skills by using them. If you're an armchair general then you've never actually grown your skills, you've only ever roleplayed. Actual engagement has costs and comes with losses, recovering from losses and trying new strategies. You can't just think about how to weave a basket and be a good basket weaver. You have to actually weave baskets and practice.
- jjulius 3y ago
  >I understand what the parent is saying. Respectfully, I think you're still missing the point as demonstrated by your last sentence. >You can't just think about how to weave a basket and be a good basket weaver. You have to actually weave baskets and practice. ... right. Which is why OP was saying that it's a mistake to look to a basket weaving executive for their opinions on Ukraine vs Russia. Having skills necessary to succeed in your field of work, or your hobby, doesn't mean that you're smart in every other area. Yes, you are intelligent at a generally high level, but OP was referring to how successful execs are put on pedestals and whose opinions on all kinds of subjects well outside of their wheelhouse are often sought after.
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    The whole point of generalized intelligence is that it's broadly applicable. That is my argument position and it is in direct contrast to what the parent is arguing that only specialized intelligence counts. In attempting to counter my argument, you are changing it in your restatement. An executive of a basket weaving company is fundamentally different than Jeff the reclusive basketweaver who can only weave baskets.