I was hoping to see something along the lines of "Intelligent people take time in stereotyping or judging people until sufficient data is collected. Hence initi

I was hoping to see something along the lines of "Intelligent people take time in stereotyping or judging people until sufficient data is collected. Hence initially they trust what people say at face value. This obviously depends on what sort of information they are dealing with. If its something that logically sounds ridiculous at face value itself(which less intelligent people cannot calculate so quickly), they dont believe the person even if its an initial conversation. But if its some trivial gossip/anecdote which doesn't hugely affect their choices in future, then they go ahead trusting the person." Personal example, if I hear some gossip about 3rd person, the conclusions drawn from that gossip about the character of that person doesnt affect my future interaction with him. I need to collect more data than few gossips to stereotype someone. On the other hand, in this case I am NOT trusting gossips because I am aware of their nature and people producing them. Research says that intelligent people instinctively know whom to trust or not which I am not so sure about. I have seen people who are extremely bad at thinking about problems like maths, physics or algorithms in general but brilliant at analyzing people. So we need more evidence on this I guess.