Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Jinn · 10-11-2005, 10:28 AM

I do not believe that acting "common" is indeed a strategy of George Bush, although we'd likely all agree that feigning intelligence is much more difficult than feigning ignorance.

That said, I do think that the previous election (since its been discussed previously) was not as directly influenced by Bush's percieved lack of intelligence as it should have been.

Communication and percieved intelligence are one of the most important metrics I have for someone I wish to represent me, as well as lead me. I have never and will never feel comfortable being in a subservient role to someone with less percieved intelligence than me. Likewise, I think this is indicative in the nearly 50/50 split that Bush and Kerry enjoyed. While some prioritize action above communication, some prioritize communication over action. It is more clearly emphasized in comments like "Bush is an idiot" or "Kerry would sit there and talk about it for an hour..", responding respectively to their percieved traits.

Why have I consistently used "percieved intelligence" in place of intelligence? The answer is simple -- intelligence, as I see it, is simply a measurement of how much knowledge you have. An intelligent person can recount facts and details with little to no effort. They've studied many areas, and they're experts or near experts in a variety of disciplines.

What then, is "percieved intelligence"? Percieved intelligence is one of the most important characteristics I believe a person can have, and it is the sum of actual intelligence with communication ability. After all, what use is that intelligence if you cannot effectively share it with your peers? It is of VERY little use.

Coming from a Quality Assurance background, I can offer tons of personal experience with what happens with communication breaks down. It is the glue of our society and our industry, and without it we dissolve into strife and conflict. In my field, programmers are often understandly upset when they program a solution based on a Project Requirement and it is met with "this isn't right!" The problem, however, was the specification -- it was ambigious or unclear and it lead them to reach false conclusions about the purpose of the software. This failure in communication leads to CONFLICT. The process benefits most when more time is spent in communication before an action is started.

This is true in every aspect of life, including one of the most imporant - intimate relationships. If the communication fails, or there is misunderstanding -- it can lead to massive conflicts and even dissolution of the relationship. Again, effective communication BEFORE action can often resolve the issue before it becomes problematic. Therefore, I put a large degree of importance on our ability to communicate with other humans.

What does this mean for Bush? He might be a very intelligent individual, and I believe he has at least average intelligence in order to garner the support he does indeed have. His percieved intelligence? Very far below average.

Why should Bush's overall intelligence be unfairly linked to his communication skills? Because it is everything that an intelligent effectie leader needs. If he can clearly tell underlings and peers what his desires are, how he plans to achieve them, and how they can help -- he becomes far less dominating and much more understanding. Any failure in this communication, via ambiguity or simply incorrect language, appears to be less intelligent. Any other self respecting leader will similarly discount his opinion because he appears to be less intelligent. This causes problems domestically as well as overseas. Anyone who can have a 365 day calendar created of his speech blunders does not deserve to be our communcation liason with the rest of the world.

Why did I vote for Kerry and mark "below average intelligence?" Simply put, I'd rather have a leader capable of discussion before action than action before discussion. I've seen the latter situation dissolve into conflict, where the former resolves into compromise.

10-11-2005, 10:28 AM	#21 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I do not believe that acting "common" is indeed a strategy of George Bush, although we'd likely all agree that feigning intelligence is much more difficult than feigning ignorance. That said, I do think that the previous election (since its been discussed previously) was not as directly influenced by Bush's percieved lack of intelligence as it should have been. Communication and percieved intelligence are one of the most important metrics I have for someone I wish to represent me, as well as lead me. I have never and will never feel comfortable being in a subservient role to someone with less percieved intelligence than me. Likewise, I think this is indicative in the nearly 50/50 split that Bush and Kerry enjoyed. While some prioritize action above communication, some prioritize communication over action. It is more clearly emphasized in comments like "Bush is an idiot" or "Kerry would sit there and talk about it for an hour..", responding respectively to their percieved traits. Why have I consistently used "percieved intelligence" in place of intelligence? The answer is simple -- intelligence, as I see it, is simply a measurement of how much knowledge you have. An intelligent person can recount facts and details with little to no effort. They've studied many areas, and they're experts or near experts in a variety of disciplines. What then, is "percieved intelligence"? Percieved intelligence is one of the most important characteristics I believe a person can have, and it is the sum of actual intelligence with communication ability. After all, what use is that intelligence if you cannot effectively share it with your peers? It is of VERY little use. Coming from a Quality Assurance background, I can offer tons of personal experience with what happens with communication breaks down. It is the glue of our society and our industry, and without it we dissolve into strife and conflict. In my field, programmers are often understandly upset when they program a solution based on a Project Requirement and it is met with "this isn't right!" The problem, however, was the specification -- it was ambigious or unclear and it lead them to reach false conclusions about the purpose of the software. This failure in communication leads to CONFLICT. The process benefits most when more time is spent in communication before an action is started. This is true in every aspect of life, including one of the most imporant - intimate relationships. If the communication fails, or there is misunderstanding -- it can lead to massive conflicts and even dissolution of the relationship. Again, effective communication BEFORE action can often resolve the issue before it becomes problematic. Therefore, I put a large degree of importance on our ability to communicate with other humans. What does this mean for Bush? He might be a very intelligent individual, and I believe he has at least average intelligence in order to garner the support he does indeed have. His percieved intelligence? Very far below average. Why should Bush's overall intelligence be unfairly linked to his communication skills? Because it is everything that an intelligent effectie leader needs. If he can clearly tell underlings and peers what his desires are, how he plans to achieve them, and how they can help -- he becomes far less dominating and much more understanding. Any failure in this communication, via ambiguity or simply incorrect language, appears to be less intelligent. Any other self respecting leader will similarly discount his opinion because he appears to be less intelligent. This causes problems domestically as well as overseas. Anyone who can have a 365 day calendar created of his speech blunders does not deserve to be our communcation liason with the rest of the world. Why did I vote for Kerry and mark "below average intelligence?" Simply put, I'd rather have a leader capable of discussion before action than action before discussion. I've seen the latter situation dissolve into conflict, where the former resolves into compromise. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 10-11-2005 at 10:31 AM..