• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Gloommonger

High Intelligence

Recommended Posts

Just now, ccc said:

I still think the words must be set up for this cunt to be that good. 

Because if not it's just ridiculous. 

I thought the same,  but he has toured the US, Australia, UK, loads of clips on YouTube with suggestions from different people. He's genuine. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gloommonger said:

I thought the same,  but he has toured the US, Australia, UK, loads of clips on YouTube with suggestions from different people. He's genuine. 

 

Aye just looked at loads of the you tube comments and too many folk saying same. 

Just ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ccc said:

I still think the words must be set up for this cunt to be that good. 

Because if not it's just ridiculous. 

Freestyle raps are impressive but unless you're a black gangsta they probably don't enter your circle of influence. It's perfectly plausible to connect 8 random words if you can rap 20 verses in between.

He doesn't do this but what's really impressive is when they speed up or slows down the rhythm. 

On a related note I've always maintained that most dosbodders would really like the first 3 or 4 Eminem albums.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gloommonger said:

When they speak they have the knack of finding the right word in conversation or in a presentation.

At the risk of being a boring bastard with no interest in rap, I believe there are two contributory factors to this.

A classical education, especially in Latin, helps, as it's a route into some of the less-used areas of vocabulary that were imported (or invented) by the high-falutin' of the 18th century. I'm guessing Oxbridge types are more likely to have been subjected to this, and I'm sure there are Latin courses available for anyone who regularly holidays in the Vatican.

More interestingly (I think), attraction to, and use of, unusual words is part of a known personality trait. There is pretty good statistical evidence that people vary along five dimensions of personality (introversion, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness). Each varies on a scale, and high scores on the last of those is associated with creativeness in general, novel word use, an interest in religion, and (at the extreme) a tendency towards schizophrenia.

I think you can find online tests for the 5 factor model of personality. As I said, it has some decent basis in evidence. It also has nothing to do with intelligence, in the sense that they are uncorrelated, so people with different personalities occur with high and low intelligence, regardless. It's also the case that there is no "good" or "bad" personality in this system per se: there is variation precisely because all positions on the scales have been successful in the past. On the other hand, there may be jobs that are more or less difficult depending on personality. For example, you might expect that an accountant wouldn't take an interest in hypothetical 12000 year old civilisations (but then again, you'd be wrong, as @Frank Hovis will attest).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BurntBread said:

At the risk of being a boring bastard with no interest in rap, I believe there are two contributory factors to this.

A classical education, especially in Latin, helps, as it's a route into some of the less-used areas of vocabulary that were imported (or invented) by the high-falutin' of the 18th century. I'm guessing Oxbridge types are more likely to have been subjected to this, and I'm sure there are Latin courses available for anyone who regularly holidays in the Vatican.

More interestingly (I think), attraction to, and use of, unusual words is part of a known personality trait. There is pretty good statistical evidence that people vary along five dimensions of personality (introversion, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness). Each varies on a scale, and high scores on the last of those is associated with creativeness in general, novel word use, an interest in religion, and (at the extreme) a tendency towards schizophrenia.

I think you can find online tests for the 5 factor model of personality. As I said, it has some decent basis in evidence. It also has nothing to do with intelligence, in the sense that they are uncorrelated, so people with different personalities occur with high and low intelligence, regardless. It's also the case that there is no "good" or "bad" personality in this system per se: there is variation precisely because all positions on the scales have been successful in the past. On the other hand, there may be jobs that are more or less difficult depending on personality. For example, you might expect that an accountant wouldn't take an interest in hypothetical 12000 year old civilisations (but then again, you'd be wrong, as @Frank Hovis will attest).

Here's mine:

image.png.56afd3c5c6026fab7e694cabd7ff5e24.png

  • Openness

  • Conscientiousness

  • Extraversion

  • Agreeableness

  • Neuroticism

https://www.truity.com/test/big-five-personality-test

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wight Flight said:

I can't post the table but scored:

O - 85%

C -85%

E - 75%

A - 44%

N - 2%

Did I win?

I'm glad you are not neurotic. You CAN join the SAS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Thombleached said:

Here's mine:

Mine was not exact but very similar. Maybe it's a dosbodder marker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MrPin said:

I'm glad you are not neurotic. You CAN join the SAS.

I was kicked out of the SAS for being too tough and showing up the others as wimps. I knew then I was dosbods material and signed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Funn3r said:

I was kicked out of the SAS for being too tough and showing up the others as wimps. I knew then I was dosbods material and signed up.

Is the correct answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BurntBread said:

At the risk of being a boring bastard with no interest in rap, I believe there are two contributory factors to this.

A classical education, especially in Latin, helps, as it's a route into some of the less-used areas of vocabulary that were imported (or invented) by the high-falutin' of the 18th century. I'm guessing Oxbridge types are more likely to have been subjected to this, and I'm sure there are Latin courses available for anyone who regularly holidays in the Vatican.

More interestingly (I think), attraction to, and use of, unusual words is part of a known personality trait. There is pretty good statistical evidence that people vary along five dimensions of personality (introversion, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness). Each varies on a scale, and high scores on the last of those is associated with creativeness in general, novel word use, an interest in religion, and (at the extreme) a tendency towards schizophrenia.

I think you can find online tests for the 5 factor model of personality. As I said, it has some decent basis in evidence. It also has nothing to do with intelligence, in the sense that they are uncorrelated, so people with different personalities occur with high and low intelligence, regardless. It's also the case that there is no "good" or "bad" personality in this system per se: there is variation precisely because all positions on the scales have been successful in the past. On the other hand, there may be jobs that are more or less difficult depending on personality. For example, you might expect that an accountant wouldn't take an interest in hypothetical 12000 year old civilisations (but then again, you'd be wrong, as @Frank Hovis will attest).

 

A big factor IME in a quality usage of the English language is people reading decent books on a regular basis.  That way you subconsciously learn to use decent sentence structure, to vary your use of words to raise the interest-level in what you are saying and writing (don't keep saying "get" as a prime example), and have a much wider vocabulary from which to choose but with which you are so familiar that there isn't a conscious choice required since you may have a dozen words that will suffice for want you wish to express but certain words will be a better fit and they slot into the sentence.

I was explaining to somebody about the six month MoT extension yesterday and it was clear that she didn't understand the basis of the MoT; for example that if you are a lunatic you can choose to have your car MoTed every week of the year.  I used as an illustration cars sold by a dealer where they are adervtised as coming with a 12 month MoT and said that it wasn't simple "happenstance" that allowed the dealer to do that but that they were able to do a MoT upon sale.

I was asked to help improve the standard of some monthly reporting and it was immediately obvious that the chap writing it, whilst bright, had probably not read a decent book in his life.  There was a table of variances and this was accompanied by a narrative section explaining the larger movements.  Every line of his narrative was "x is £yk above / below budget due to z".  My first action was to write out for him a quick listing to use to vary this multiply repeated stock phrase: "as a result of, as a consequence of, owing to, because of, following, consequent to, resulting from" etc. and say not to repeat any within a particualr section.  He was genuinely delighted because he knew very well that it was a very dull read, as it was a very dull write, but he didn't have the vocabulary to change it.

I put the general decline in spelling down to the same root cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Intelligence' is a funny old thing.

  • I've got two mates who are seriously capable mathematicians.  They're definitely intelligent in that arena, but both are socially inept.  
  • And I've got one friend who is a genius salesman.  He doesn't know much and can't do fancy stuff like 'mathematics', yet he can make someone buy something that they didn't want to buy.
  • And a nephew who is good at running a shop -- with online sales he's got turnover in the 10's of millions and income well into 6 figures.  But he didn't get any A-levels.

Perhaps all those are equally intelligent, just in different domains?  Just as the above examples are better at 'sounding intelligent' or good at making up rhymes.

Perhaps we should define 'intelligence' as being good at a range of things -- the old-fashioned polymath?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Every line of his narrative was "x is £yk above / below budget due to z".  My first action was to write out for him a quick listing to use to vary this multiply repeated stock phrase: "as a result of, as a consequence of, owing to, because of, following, consequent to, resulting from" etc. and say not to repeat any within a particualr section.  He was genuinely delighted because he knew very well that it was a very dull read, as it was a very dull write, but he didn't have the vocabulary to change it.

I put the general decline in spelling down to the same root cause.

Mmmm. 

Enlivening a table of variances.

Mmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MrLibertyRedux said:

Mmmm. 

Enlivening a table of variances.

Mmmm.

 

I'm not suggesting that people were queueing up to award the revised report the Nobel Prize for Literature but the changes meant that the directors did now actually read it, because it was now readable, rather than simply relying upon the FD to have read it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frank Hovis said:

 

I'm not suggesting that people were queueing up to award the revised report the Nobel Prize for Literature but the changes meant that the directors did now actually read it, because it was now readable, rather than simply relying upon the FD to have read it.

 

Funny, though; when I joined the Civil Service I was told (ordered) to stop using all that flowery language because the people reading it were getting confused; I had to use a limited range of stock phrases that were repeated (everyone would know what they meant, rather than having to 'interpret').

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dgul said:

Funny, though; when I joined the Civil Service I was told (ordered) to stop using all that flowery language because the people reading it were getting confused; I had to use a limited range of stock phrases that were repeated (everyone would know what they meant, rather than having to 'interpret').

Dear oh dear!

Though the average usage of English at present is going to be far below where the average sat back in those days.  I found myself cringing at some reports and emails; they were of a level of English which had I used at age ten would have seen it given back for me to do it again.  And that was before the spelling mistakes and other general errors.  I have several times suggested that there may be a discount sale of commas underway given the frequency of their appearances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

 

I'm not suggesting that people were queueing up to award the revised report the Nobel Prize for Literature but the changes meant that the directors did now actually read it, because it was now readable, rather than simply relying upon the FD to have read it.

 

:)

I'm being facetious.

Just grumpy about My Beautiful Pubs.

Don't know if anyone has seen it, there was a very good Ted talk, nearly 15 years old now, "Do schools kill creativity?" by Ken Robinson.

Nearly 20 minutes but worth a watch.

As someone who went to a crap state comprehensive in the 80's under Thatcher during the miners strike I would have to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dgul said:

Funny, though; when I joined the Civil Service I was told (ordered) to stop using all that flowery language because the people reading it were getting confused; I had to use a limited range of stock phrases that were repeated (everyone would know what they meant, rather than having to 'interpret').

Yes, got exactly the same!

They were promoting the "Campaign for plain English" or some such.

I just thought it was dumbing down.

Just look at the information and language in The Times newspaper today compared to a hundred years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.