7 ms·

As some who has a dis-harmonic intelligence profile, this has been obvious for a very long time. In the family of my mother there are several individuals strugg

As some who has a dis-harmonic intelligence profile, this has been obvious for a very long time. In the family of my mother there are several individuals struggling with language while excelling in the field of exact sciences. I very strongly suspect that my non-verbal (performal) IQ is much higher (around 130) than my verbal IQ (around 100). I have struggled my whole life to express my ideas with language. I consider myself an abstract visual thinker. I do not think in pictures, but in abstract structures. During my life, I have met several people, especially among software engineers, who seem to be similar to me. I also feel that people who are strong verbal thinkers have the greatest resistance against idea that language is not essential for higher cognitive processes.

eliaspro 2y ago
Growing up, I never used words or even sentences for thinking. The abstract visualizations I could build in my mind where comparable to semi-transparent buildings that I could freely spin, navigate and bend to connect relations. In my mid-twenties, someone introduced me to the concept of people using words for mental processes, which was completely foreign to me up to this point. For some reason, this made my brain move more and more towards this language-based model and at the same time, I felt like I was losing the capacity for complex abstract thoughts. Still to this day I (unsuccessfully) try to revive this and unlearn the language in my head, which feels like it imposes a huge barrier and limits my mental capacity to the capabilities of what the language my brain uses at the given time (mostly EN, partially DE) allows to express.
- ryandv 2y ago
  This reminds me of my experiences working with a software developer transplanted from the humanities who was highly articulate and capable of producing language about programming, yet seemed to not be able to write many actual computer programs themselves. I think that I ultimately developed an obsessive need to cite all my ideas against the literature and formulate natural language arguments for my claims to avoid being bludgeoned over the head with wordcelry and being seen as inferior for my lesser verbal fluency despite having written software for years at that point, since early childhood, and even studied computer science.
kerblang 2y ago
> During my life, I have met several people, especially among software engineers, who seem to be similar to me This begs a question though: Since programming is mostly done with language - admittedly primitive/pidgin ones - why isn't that a struggle? Not sure if you're a programmer yourself, but if so do you prefer certain programming languages for some sense of "less-verbalness" or does it even matter? Just wondering, not attacking your claim per se.
- alserio 2y ago
  The idea that programming languages and natural languages are processed with the same wetware should be testable with something like the tests described in this submission. I don't expect it to be true, but only expecting something is not science
  - dleeftink 2y ago
    Some progress has been made in this area, see [0], [1], [2] and [3], observing both similarities and dissimilarities in terms of language processing: Siegmund, J., Kästner, C., Apel, S., Parnin, C., Bethmann, A., Leich, T. & Brechmann, A. (2014). Understanding understanding source code with functional magnetic resonance imaging. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 378-389). Peitek, N., Siegmund, J., Apel, S., Kästner, C., Parnin, C., Bethmann, A. & Brechmann, A. (2018). A look into programmers’ heads. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 46(4), 442-462. Krueger, R., Huang, Y., Liu, X., Santander, T., Weimer, W., & Leach, K. (2020). Neurological divide: An fMRI study of prose and code writing. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 678-690). Peitek, N., Apel, S., Parnin, C., Brechmann, A. & Siegmund, J. (2021). Program comprehension and code complexity metrics: An fmri study. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) (pp. 524-536). IEEE. [0]: https://www.frontiersin.org/10.3389/conf.fninf.2014.18.00040/event_abstract https://www.frontiersin.org/10.3389/conf.fninf.2014.18.00040... [1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8425769 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8425769 [2]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3377811.3380348 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3377811.3380348 [3]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9402005 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9402005
tines 2y ago
> As some who has a dis-harmonic intelligence profile, this has been obvious for a very long time. In the family of my mother there are several individuals struggling with language while excelling in the field of exact sciences. I very strongly suspect that my non-verbal (performal) IQ is much higher (around 130) than my verbal IQ (around 100) I used to rationalize to myself along similar lines for a long time, then I realized that I'm just not as smart as I thought I was.
- NemoNobody 2y ago
  I'm a brilliant genius according to IQ tests. Think me arrogant or conceited or whatever - that is literally the truth, fact - proven many times in the educational system (I was homeschooled and didn't follow any sort of curriculum and was allowed to do whatever I wanted bc I kept testing higher than almost everyone) and just for kicks also - the last time I took an IQ test I was in my late 20s and a friend and I had a bet about who could score higher completely stoned off of our ass. We rolled enough blunts apiece that we could be continuously smoking marijuana as we took the IQ test, which followed several bongs finished between the two of us. I was so high that I couldn't keep the numbers straight on one of the number pattern questions - it was ridiculous. I scored 124, my lowest "serious" attempt ever - all of this is 100% true. I need anyone to believe me - take this how you will but I have an opinion that is a bit different. I'm brilliant - I've read volumes of encyclopedias, my hobbies include comparative theology, etymology, quantum mechanics and predicting the future with high accuracy (I only mention stuff I'm certain of tho ;) but so much so it disturbs my friends and family. The highest I scored was in the 160s as a teenager but I truly believe they were over compensating for my age - only as an adult have I learned most children are stupid and they maybe in fact didn't over compensate. I am different than anyone else I've ever personally met - I fundamentally see the world different. All of that is true but that's a rather flawed way of assessing intelligence - fr. I'm being serious. The things we know can free us as much as they can trap us - knowledge alone doesn't make a man successful, wealthy, happy or even healthy - I'm living evidence of this. That doesn't cut it as a metric for prediction of much. There are other qualities that are far more valuable in the societal sense. Every Boss I've ever worked for has been dumber than me - each one I've learned invaluable stuff from. I was a boss once - in my day I owned and self taught/created an entire social network much like FB was a few years ago, mine obviously didn't take off and now I'm a very capable bum. Maybe someday something I'm tinkering with will make me millions but prolly not, for many reasons, I could write books if I wanted ;) At the end of the day, the facts are what they are - there is an optimal level of intelligence that is obviously higher than the bottom but is nowhere near the top tier, very likely near that 100 IQ baseline. What separates us all is our capabilities - mostly stuff we can directly control, like learning a trade. A Master Plumber is a genius plumber by another name and that can and obviously is most often, learned genius. What you sus about yourself is truth - don't doubt that. No IQ test ever told me I lacked the tenacity of the C average student that would employ me someday - they can't actually measure the extent of our dedicated capacity. I kno more than most people ever have before or rn presently - I don't know as much about plumbing as an apprentice with 2 years of a trade school dedicated to plumbing and a year or two of experience in the field, that's the reality of it. I could learn the trade - I could learn most every trade, but I won't. That's life. I can tell you how you the ancients plumbed bc that piqued my curiosity and I kno far more about Roman plumbing than I do how a modern city sewer system works. That's also life. It isn't what we kno or how fast we can learn it - it's what we do that defines us. Become more capable if you feel looked down on - this is the way bc even if what you hone your capabilities of can be replicated by others most won't even try. That's my rant about this whole intelligence perception we currently have as a society. Having 100 IQ is nowhere near the barrier that having 150 IQ is. Rant aside, to the article - how isn't this obvious? I mean feelings literally exist - not just the warm fuzzy ones, like the literal feeling of existence. Does a monkey's mind require words to interpret pain or pleasure for example. Do I need to know what "fire" or "hot" is in a verbal context to sufficiently understand "burn" - words exists to convey to to others what doesn't need to be conveyed to us. That's their function. Communication. To facilitate communication with our social brethren we adopt them fundamentally as our Lego blocks for understanding the world - we pretend that words comprising language are the ideas themselves. A banana is a - the word is the fruit, they are the same in our minds but if I erase the word banana and all it's meaning of the fruit and I randomly encounter a banana - I still can taste it. No words necessary. Also, you can think without words, deliberately and consciously - even absentmindedly. And LLMs can't reason ;) Truthfully, the reality is that a 100 IQ normal human is far more capable than any AI I've been given access to - in almost every metric I attempted to asses I ultimately didn't even bother as it was so obvious that humans are functionally superior. When AI can reason - you, and everyone else, will kno it. It will be self evident. Anyways, tldr: ppl are smarter than given credit for, smarter and much more capable - IQ is real and matters but far less than we are led to believe. People are awesome - the epitome of biological life on Earth and we do a lot of amazing things and anyone can be amazing. I hate it when the Hacker News collective belittles itself - don't do that. I rant here bc it's one of the most interesting places I've found and I care about what all of you think far more than I care about your IQ scores.
makeitdouble 2y ago
I think people who can manipulate complex structures but struggle with language tend to see language in a more formal way, putting more effort into understanding its structure and inner working. Basically what to most people is so obvious that it becomes transparent ("air") isn't to us, which apparently is an incredible gift for becoming a language researcher. Or a programmer.
bertylicious 2y ago
> I very strongly suspect that my non-verbal (performal) IQ is much higher (around 130) than my verbal IQ (around 100). I very strongly suspect that you're overestimating yourself.
GoblinSlayer 2y ago
IME fast talking people simply give half assed formulations of half assed ideas.
segalord 2y ago
You’d still be reasoning using symbols, language is inherently an extension of symbols and memes. Think of a person representing a complex concept in their mind with a symbol and using it for further reasoning
zero_shift 2y ago
Although I fit the profile of a verbal thinker (English degree, education in the humanities) I don't exactly find language the primary aspect of my thought. It seems more like a complement to it: the idea arises, and then I have this compulsion to verbalise it, which gets quite frustrating as it takes several iterations. Clearly words do matter to me as a way to structure and record my ideas but there is something that pre-empts verbalisation and to some extent resists it. I cannot provide insight on how I arrive at ideas. Even when I did literary criticism, the best I can say is that I absorbed lots of text and then suddenly a pattern would spring out. But the same things would happen for me studying maths or the hard sciences. Software engineering is actually a bit different for me because I am not naturally a good algorithmic problem solver. Really I am somebody very passionate about computing who has a near-compulsion to see and collect more and more technology. So for me it is as simple as saying "this resembles a reader monad" or "this puns on the active record pattern". Less impressive than my humanities intelligence but worth maybe 10x the amount in the labour market :-)

eliaspro 2y ago

Growing up, I never used words or even sentences for thinking. The abstract visualizations I could build in my mind where comparable to semi-transparent buildings that I could freely spin, navigate and bend to connect relations. In my mid-twenties, someone introduced me to the concept of people using words for mental processes, which was completely foreign to me up to this point. For some reason, this made my brain move more and more towards this language-based model and at the same time, I felt like I was losing the capacity for complex abstract thoughts. Still to this day I (unsuccessfully) try to revive this and unlearn the language in my head, which feels like it imposes a huge barrier and limits my mental capacity to the capabilities of what the language my brain uses at the given time (mostly EN, partially DE) allows to express.

ryandv 2y ago
This reminds me of my experiences working with a software developer transplanted from the humanities who was highly articulate and capable of producing language about programming, yet seemed to not be able to write many actual computer programs themselves. I think that I ultimately developed an obsessive need to cite all my ideas against the literature and formulate natural language arguments for my claims to avoid being bludgeoned over the head with wordcelry and being seen as inferior for my lesser verbal fluency despite having written software for years at that point, since early childhood, and even studied computer science.

kerblang 2y ago

> During my life, I have met several people, especially among software engineers, who seem to be similar to me This begs a question though: Since programming is mostly done with language - admittedly primitive/pidgin ones - why isn't that a struggle? Not sure if you're a programmer yourself, but if so do you prefer certain programming languages for some sense of "less-verbalness" or does it even matter? Just wondering, not attacking your claim per se.

alserio 2y ago
The idea that programming languages and natural languages are processed with the same wetware should be testable with something like the tests described in this submission. I don't expect it to be true, but only expecting something is not science
- dleeftink 2y ago
  Some progress has been made in this area, see [0], [1], [2] and [3], observing both similarities and dissimilarities in terms of language processing: Siegmund, J., Kästner, C., Apel, S., Parnin, C., Bethmann, A., Leich, T. & Brechmann, A. (2014). Understanding understanding source code with functional magnetic resonance imaging. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 378-389). Peitek, N., Siegmund, J., Apel, S., Kästner, C., Parnin, C., Bethmann, A. & Brechmann, A. (2018). A look into programmers’ heads. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 46(4), 442-462. Krueger, R., Huang, Y., Liu, X., Santander, T., Weimer, W., & Leach, K. (2020). Neurological divide: An fMRI study of prose and code writing. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 678-690). Peitek, N., Apel, S., Parnin, C., Brechmann, A. & Siegmund, J. (2021). Program comprehension and code complexity metrics: An fmri study. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) (pp. 524-536). IEEE. [0]: https://www.frontiersin.org/10.3389/conf.fninf.2014.18.00040/event_abstract https://www.frontiersin.org/10.3389/conf.fninf.2014.18.00040... [1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8425769 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8425769 [2]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3377811.3380348 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3377811.3380348 [3]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9402005 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9402005

tines 2y ago

> As some who has a dis-harmonic intelligence profile, this has been obvious for a very long time. In the family of my mother there are several individuals struggling with language while excelling in the field of exact sciences. I very strongly suspect that my non-verbal (performal) IQ is much higher (around 130) than my verbal IQ (around 100) I used to rationalize to myself along similar lines for a long time, then I realized that I'm just not as smart as I thought I was.

NemoNobody 2y ago
I'm a brilliant genius according to IQ tests. Think me arrogant or conceited or whatever - that is literally the truth, fact - proven many times in the educational system (I was homeschooled and didn't follow any sort of curriculum and was allowed to do whatever I wanted bc I kept testing higher than almost everyone) and just for kicks also - the last time I took an IQ test I was in my late 20s and a friend and I had a bet about who could score higher completely stoned off of our ass. We rolled enough blunts apiece that we could be continuously smoking marijuana as we took the IQ test, which followed several bongs finished between the two of us. I was so high that I couldn't keep the numbers straight on one of the number pattern questions - it was ridiculous. I scored 124, my lowest "serious" attempt ever - all of this is 100% true. I need anyone to believe me - take this how you will but I have an opinion that is a bit different. I'm brilliant - I've read volumes of encyclopedias, my hobbies include comparative theology, etymology, quantum mechanics and predicting the future with high accuracy (I only mention stuff I'm certain of tho ;) but so much so it disturbs my friends and family. The highest I scored was in the 160s as a teenager but I truly believe they were over compensating for my age - only as an adult have I learned most children are stupid and they maybe in fact didn't over compensate. I am different than anyone else I've ever personally met - I fundamentally see the world different. All of that is true but that's a rather flawed way of assessing intelligence - fr. I'm being serious. The things we know can free us as much as they can trap us - knowledge alone doesn't make a man successful, wealthy, happy or even healthy - I'm living evidence of this. That doesn't cut it as a metric for prediction of much. There are other qualities that are far more valuable in the societal sense. Every Boss I've ever worked for has been dumber than me - each one I've learned invaluable stuff from. I was a boss once - in my day I owned and self taught/created an entire social network much like FB was a few years ago, mine obviously didn't take off and now I'm a very capable bum. Maybe someday something I'm tinkering with will make me millions but prolly not, for many reasons, I could write books if I wanted ;) At the end of the day, the facts are what they are - there is an optimal level of intelligence that is obviously higher than the bottom but is nowhere near the top tier, very likely near that 100 IQ baseline. What separates us all is our capabilities - mostly stuff we can directly control, like learning a trade. A Master Plumber is a genius plumber by another name and that can and obviously is most often, learned genius. What you sus about yourself is truth - don't doubt that. No IQ test ever told me I lacked the tenacity of the C average student that would employ me someday - they can't actually measure the extent of our dedicated capacity. I kno more than most people ever have before or rn presently - I don't know as much about plumbing as an apprentice with 2 years of a trade school dedicated to plumbing and a year or two of experience in the field, that's the reality of it. I could learn the trade - I could learn most every trade, but I won't. That's life. I can tell you how you the ancients plumbed bc that piqued my curiosity and I kno far more about Roman plumbing than I do how a modern city sewer system works. That's also life. It isn't what we kno or how fast we can learn it - it's what we do that defines us. Become more capable if you feel looked down on - this is the way bc even if what you hone your capabilities of can be replicated by others most won't even try. That's my rant about this whole intelligence perception we currently have as a society. Having 100 IQ is nowhere near the barrier that having 150 IQ is. Rant aside, to the article - how isn't this obvious? I mean feelings literally exist - not just the warm fuzzy ones, like the literal feeling of existence. Does a monkey's mind require words to interpret pain or pleasure for example. Do I need to know what "fire" or "hot" is in a verbal context to sufficiently understand "burn" - words exists to convey to to others what doesn't need to be conveyed to us. That's their function. Communication. To facilitate communication with our social brethren we adopt them fundamentally as our Lego blocks for understanding the world - we pretend that words comprising language are the ideas themselves. A banana is a - the word is the fruit, they are the same in our minds but if I erase the word banana and all it's meaning of the fruit and I randomly encounter a banana - I still can taste it. No words necessary. Also, you can think without words, deliberately and consciously - even absentmindedly. And LLMs can't reason ;) Truthfully, the reality is that a 100 IQ normal human is far more capable than any AI I've been given access to - in almost every metric I attempted to asses I ultimately didn't even bother as it was so obvious that humans are functionally superior. When AI can reason - you, and everyone else, will kno it. It will be self evident. Anyways, tldr: ppl are smarter than given credit for, smarter and much more capable - IQ is real and matters but far less than we are led to believe. People are awesome - the epitome of biological life on Earth and we do a lot of amazing things and anyone can be amazing. I hate it when the Hacker News collective belittles itself - don't do that. I rant here bc it's one of the most interesting places I've found and I care about what all of you think far more than I care about your IQ scores.

makeitdouble 2y ago

I think people who can manipulate complex structures but struggle with language tend to see language in a more formal way, putting more effort into understanding its structure and inner working. Basically what to most people is so obvious that it becomes transparent ("air") isn't to us, which apparently is an incredible gift for becoming a language researcher. Or a programmer.

bertylicious 2y ago

> I very strongly suspect that my non-verbal (performal) IQ is much higher (around 130) than my verbal IQ (around 100). I very strongly suspect that you're overestimating yourself.

GoblinSlayer 2y ago

IME fast talking people simply give half assed formulations of half assed ideas.

segalord 2y ago

You’d still be reasoning using symbols, language is inherently an extension of symbols and memes. Think of a person representing a complex concept in their mind with a symbol and using it for further reasoning

zero_shift 2y ago

Although I fit the profile of a verbal thinker (English degree, education in the humanities) I don't exactly find language the primary aspect of my thought. It seems more like a complement to it: the idea arises, and then I have this compulsion to verbalise it, which gets quite frustrating as it takes several iterations. Clearly words do matter to me as a way to structure and record my ideas but there is something that pre-empts verbalisation and to some extent resists it. I cannot provide insight on how I arrive at ideas. Even when I did literary criticism, the best I can say is that I absorbed lots of text and then suddenly a pattern would spring out. But the same things would happen for me studying maths or the hard sciences. Software engineering is actually a bit different for me because I am not naturally a good algorithmic problem solver. Really I am somebody very passionate about computing who has a near-compulsion to see and collect more and more technology. So for me it is as simple as saying "this resembles a reader monad" or "this puns on the active record pattern". Less impressive than my humanities intelligence but worth maybe 10x the amount in the labour market :-)