Working with unintelligent people, you need to spend more time building up a reputation. They cannot tell if you're intelligent based on what you say, or how you explain things -- only if you get results. This is nerve wracking for multiple reasons, but chiefly because intelligent people can be wrong, or unlucky, etc, and so only judging someone based on results is partially to judge based on luck.

Through work I had the privilege of being around lots of people who were smarter than me, but if somebody asked me to rank them from "somewhat smarter" to "much smarter", I would have had a hard time.

Just an anecdote! I don't have any hard evidence.

I also wondered for many years why most of them didn't quit their jobs when on paper they would have been able to do so, but work is not a great place to ask those sorts of questions.

He said something to the effect of: it's easy for a smart person to pretend they're dumb, but it's impossible for a dumb person to pretend they're smart.

Norm himself was pretty good at convincing people he was dumb when very much the opposite was true.

I've noticed the smarter a person is, the fewer qualms they have about sharing exactly what they're aiming to do.

This approach is also a simple way to identify stupid people, but for stupid people there are much quicker methods. And stupid people tend to be cagey, because they have fewer tools for identifying when somebody is trying to take advantage of them, and because they've got experience being taken advantage of.

Hopefully the HN administrators will get around to noticing this domain eventually as well and banning it.

Like the point of being more intelligent than someone or something is to an extent being able to simulate their brain and thinking with your own brain.

We’re cleverer than animals because we can simulate all their actions before they do them.

You can’t simulate something more advanced than yourself.

This is also a common basis for the concept of "free will": no computer can model its own behavior such that it can reliably predict it.

To a squirrel all humans are equally, unfathomably intelligent.

Also imo is very difficult to come up with a universal definition of intelligence. For example, I hold Lionel Messi to be a very "intelligent" footballer, but I would judge his intelligence to be of vastly different nature to that of Albert Einstein.

(Good Soldier Švejk is _dark_ _comedy_ - but not necessary an answer someone could take or like, moreover some people may happen to be smart differently.. some with high IQ still be dumb - or, the.. reverse?? ..really? - but howTF ??? ;)

^1: https://www.psypost.org/intelligent-people-are-better-judges...

1) Syntax/semantic split. Can the person accept that a function called "multiplyBy5(a,b) { return a+b }" doesn't actually multiply by five, but adds the numbers? 2) PR speak: Does the person recognize that public relation speak is usually intentionally misleading, as in "the Russian Ministry of Defense said that a fire [onboard the Moskva] had caused ammunition to explode" (obviously caused by an Ukrainian missile and not an accidental fire, even though that's what's implied.) [0] 3) They're, their, there: There easy to tell apart, since they're meaning is so different. /s 4) Viewpoints: Can this person understand and articulate viewpoints that they consider "wrong" or simply don't hold themselves? 5) (new) LLM introspection: Does the person understand that LLMs have no secret understanding of themselves? An LLM like "Grok" doesn't actually understand "Grok" better than Gemini understands "Grok" - apart from minor differences in model strength maybe.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Moskva