Is it possible that I am stupider than I think I am? Forum

[jwinaz]

Generally, thinking you might be stupid is a sign you're pretty intelligent. Only stupid people think they're smart.

I think cinephile's comments are too strong above, but there's some basis for a similar notion found in what's known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[2]


I don't know that much about it, but heard of it from an article I read a while back. It seems (you might want to read up more on it if you're interested) that there are cases where people who are "smart/competent" or "less smart/competent" misjudge their intelligence/competence in the opposite directions. The broad idea of what cinephile said may have some factual basis to it, but I definitely think it's too strong to say that only stupid people think they're smart. YOu can simply be arrogant or just plain honest or correct when saying you're smart and actually be smart. ...hehe......

One example is Bobby Fischer (arguably the greatest chess player of all time). His IQ was reportedly 180 and he revolutionized and dominated chess as a prodigy and the eventual GM world champion. But, he was brutally honest when saying that he was the best in the world before he even became the world champion. lol.

[jwinaz]

I would recommend taking an intelligence quotient test and planning accordingly.

I would disagree with this or, at least, be very cautious about what to make of one's IQ.

Putting aside whether IQ correctly measures "intelligence" or can predict future success (both of which are contentious), it's important to recognize that a "minimal" (by minimal I don't necessarily mean a "low" IQ, but the minimal required for a particular type of activity) IQ is needed to do some tasks, but after that threshold has been met it's often more about other factors, such as work ethic, resourcefulness, creativity, strategic planning, time management, etc.

You need a certain "reasonable" or minimal level of intelligence certainly to do X activity, but after that I don't think IQ tells us much.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

I would recommend taking an intelligence quotient test and planning accordingly.

I would disagree with this or, at least, be very cautious about what to make of one's IQ.

Putting aside whether IQ correctly measures "intelligence" or can predict future success (both of which are contentious), it's important to recognize that a "minimal" (by minimal I don't necessarily mean a "low" IQ, but the minimal required for a particular type of activity) IQ is needed to do some tasks, but after that threshold has been met it's often more about other factors, such as work ethic, resourcefulness, creativity, strategic planning, time management, etc.

You need a certain "reasonable" or minimal level of intelligence certainly to do X activity, but after that I don't think IQ tells us much.

Yeah, if only there were some test you could take that would let you know how well you'd do on the LSAT.

[Scotusnerd]

I have been going to a top 500 college so I know I can't be that smart. I have a easy 3.7 taking mediocre classes. My point is am I vastly unprepared for getting into and going to law school?

I sometimes use free lecture videos to pass the time and I have seen that I would fail miserably if I were taking courses at a college like UC berkley for example I was just watching some random political science videos, even though I have already completed the major in my own college, and I saw that they actually use empirical and quantitative analysis there. I think I need to go to a real university for a couple of years before I can shoot for a top 30 law school. Currently I have 90 credits but 20 years old. I know several people in law schools ranked in the 80-50 range and they are on about the same level as I am.

All my friends go to similar colleges to what I go to and I have absolutely no idea what intellectual level people are on in Ivy league colleges. Do people in schools like that still go to law school? WTF is going on? I was in the 85% on the SAT, have I gotten dumber by going to a shitty college?

College? SAT? Intellectual level in Ivy league schools?



Okay assuming this is not a flame, you need to realize a couple of things.

1. Ivy League people are not particularly smarter than you are. They are richer and have had more opportunities.
2. "Intellectual level" is a bullshit concept that young people come up with to describe the term "hard work."
3. Your 'intellectual level', similarly, is based on your ability to work hard and learn how to do whatever the fuck is in front of you. In short, it is the skill of learning.
4. Therefore, since it is the skill of learning, it is something that you can modify internally.
5. Therefore, there is zero reason to blame anything but yourself for the drop in "intelligence level." You are completely capable of changing your own outlook and abilities. You are lacking in competition right now, right? That's why you think that you're getting 'dumber.' You're pitting yourself against lazy people. The solution? Get off your ass, find that competition (in the LSAT, for example), and figure out how to take it out. In short, pit yourself against nonlazy people.

I know I sound a bit harsh, but you really sound like a kid right now. You're going to be going up against people who are starting on a second career. Expect everyone there to be just as 'smart' as you (if not smarter). The only difference is in motivation and study techniques.

[Dr. Dre]

Okay assuming this is not a flame, you need to realize a couple of things.

1. Ivy League people are not particularly smarter than you are. They are richer and have had more opportunities.
2. "Intellectual level" is a bullshit concept that young people come up with to describe the term "hard work."
3. Your 'intellectual level', similarly, is based on your ability to work hard and learn how to do whatever the fuck is in front of you. In short, it is the skill of learning.
4. Therefore, since it is the skill of learning, it is something that you can modify internally.
5. Therefore, there is zero reason to blame anything but yourself for the drop in "intelligence level." You are completely capable of changing your own outlook and abilities. You are lacking in competition right now, right? That's why you think that you're getting 'dumber.' You're pitting yourself against lazy people. The solution? Get off your ass, find that competition (in the LSAT, for example), and figure out how to take it out. In short, pit yourself against nonlazy people.

I know I sound a bit harsh, but you really sound like a kid right now. You're going to be going up against people who are starting on a second career. Expect everyone there to be just as 'smart' as you (if not smarter). The only difference is in motivation and study techniques.

OP, this is sound advice. Take it.

But in all seriousness, OP, quit being a little bitch. You're depressing.

Are you watching March Madness? Did you see the low seed Wichita State beat the #1 seed, Gonzaga? Do you think Wichita State cared about being ranked low or that they were facing the #1 team? Fuck no.

[Ave]

Are you watching March Madness? Did you see the low seed Wichita State beat the #1 seed, Gonzaga? Do you think Wichita State cared about being ranked low or that they were facing the #1 team? Fuck no.

Nah, I'm sure they did; they just didn't give up because of it

[Dr. Dre]

Nah, I'm sure they did; they just didn't give up because of it

Yeah that's my point. Cliche as fuck, I know, but really you mustn't give up.

[dkb17xzx]

Is it possible that I am stupider than I think I am?

possibly...there was an article floating around TLS about how everyone thinks they are a special snowflake.

although, the fact that you asked this question has to account for something positive

[jtabustos]

Don't forget too that there are "multiple intelligences," which was a term and part of the name of his book that Harvard Prof. Howard Gardner coined for describing his view of intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_ ... elligences (check it out here)

Seems everyone and their grandmother know of the theory nowadays, but I guess I still find a decent amt. of people whod on't.

IQ tests may not measure all types of intelligence or even the most important type needed for law. That's up for debate probably. But, yeah, effort can account for a lot.

I like the b-ball analogy above, because I'm a huge basketball fan and player myself. Some players have what some might describe as "raw talent." They are physically gifted and athletic. They may have the natural coordination to do certain moves more easily than others. And they may even have some natural instincts that others have had to be taught in order to incorporate into their game. If that person with raw talent doesn't work on his game and continuing refining his skills and adding more to them, then he could be overtaken by others with less "natural talent."

Or that person might underachieve, while others may overachieve. I remember reading how David Robinson was a guy who never worked on his post game and could have been even more dominant. The Spurs owners/coaches would get upset with him, becsause he was the franchise star and had a perfect body (Have you seen him? He was like Dwight Howard before Dwight.) and the raw potential to be great. I kind of think D-Rob underachieved.

A guy like David Lee or Kevin Love who are both big men in the league are examples of guys who didn't come in the league as physical specimens or necessarily have a great post game. But if you've followed their progression, both have developed pretty good post games through hard work and are 20 and 10 guys in the league now....KLove is more 25/15. KLove, in partiuclar, was kind of clumsy with is post game the first two years. But now he's got better footwork and form and a legit and good post game.

Work ethic is huge. It's not the only factor, but it's a big part of success in many areas of life.

[resilience99]

Don't forget too that there are "multiple intelligences," which was a term and part of the name of his book that Harvard Prof. Howard Gardner coined for describing his view of intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_ ... elligences (check it out here)

Seems everyone and their grandmother know of the theory nowadays, but I guess I still find a decent amt. of people whod on't.

IQ tests may not measure all types of intelligence or even the most important type needed for law. That's up for debate probably. But, yeah, effort can account for a lot.

I like the b-ball analogy above, because I'm a huge basketball fan and player myself. Some players have what some might describe as "raw talent." They are physically gifted and athletic. They may have the natural coordination to do certain moves more easily than others. And they may even have some natural instincts that others have had to be taught in order to incorporate into their game. If that person with raw talent doesn't work on his game and continuing refining his skills and adding more to them, then he could be overtaken by others with less "natural talent."

Or that person might underachieve, while others may overachieve. I remember reading how David Robinson was a guy who never worked on his post game and could have been even more dominant. The Spurs owners/coaches would get upset with him, becsause he was the franchise star and had a perfect body (Have you seen him? He was like Dwight Howard before Dwight.) and the raw potential to be great. I kind of think D-Rob underachieved.

A guy like David Lee or Kevin Love who are both big men in the league are examples of guys who didn't come in the league as physical specimens or necessarily have a great post game. But if you've followed their progression, both have developed pretty good post games through hard work and are 20 and 10 guys in the league now....KLove is more 25/15. KLove, in partiuclar, was kind of clumsy with is post game the first two years. But now he's got better footwork and form and a legit and good post game.

Work ethic is huge. It's not the only factor, but it's a big part of success in many areas of life.

I agree with your b-ball analogy. Kenneth Faried is another player who came in the league undersized in the pf position, but uses his motor and energy to outplay and out-hustle taller and more skilled players.

[TheBiggerMediocre]

I just phrased it childishly to get attention, I understand what it takes and I have been working hard. But the reason this idea came into my head is because of all the talk these past few years of low mobility and income inequality. I think it would be beneficial for me to have gone to a more competitive school because I thrive in competition.

I have a little basketball analogy of my own. I went from 215 lbs to 180 at 5"8 in 4 years, and now I play ball on one of the worst d2 teams. So yes I have worked hard in the past to overcome challenges. But in that situation I placed myself around people that were older and more experienced therefore increasing my competitiveness. Whereas in college I started relatively around there and just coasted to the finish(almost.)

[Scotusnerd]

I just phrased it childishly to get attention

Yeah I'm done here.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

Dude, just take the LSAT. All of this other thinking is just a distraction.

[scifiguy]

I just phrased it childishly to get attention, I understand what it takes and I have been working hard. But the reason this idea came into my head is because of all the talk these past few years of low mobility and income inequality. I think it would be beneficial for me to have gone to a more competitive school because I thrive in competition.

I have a little basketball analogy of my own. I went from 215 lbs to 180 at 5"8 in 4 years, and now I play ball on one of the worst d2 teams. So yes I have worked hard in the past to overcome challenges. But in that situation I placed myself around people that were older and more experienced therefore increasing my competitiveness. Whereas in college I started relatively around there and just coasted to the finish(almost.)

Hmm, one concern I'd have with "coasting" through college and not challenging oneself academically is that you may not have a proper assessment of your own skills, strengths, and weaknesses. Personally, I thihnk people need that in order to assess their suitability for something like law school (which is a huge commitmentn to make in life!).

I think I created a thread last year (can't remember off top of head atm) asking whether taking easy classes for a high GPA was a good idea...actually...I think someone else made a thread and I commented. I'm not saying you intentionally did that, but even if it was on accident, then the concern would be whether you could handle the greater rigor?

are you still in school? Maybe you can take a summer class at Harvard or a summer or semester at a "good" univ. in your area or a bunch of "hard" classes in your school?

[alwayssunnyinfl]

are you still in school? Maybe you can take a summer class at Harvard or a summer or semester at a "good" univ. in your area or a bunch of "hard" classes in your school?

This is a terrible idea. If you really want to challenge yourself because you have some kind of mental-midget Napoleon complex, don't do it in a way that will tank your LSAC GPA if you fail. Take a really hard science course for no credit at a local CC or try learning a new language or musical instrument. Do something that is both challenging and will enrich your life without the very likely negative consequences of bringing down a 3.7.

And take the LSAT.

[jwinaz]

Okay assuming this is not a flame, you need to realize a couple of things.

1. Ivy League people are not particularly smarter than you are. They are richer and have had more opportunities.
2. "Intellectual level" is a bullshit concept that young people come up with to describe the term "hard work."
3. Your 'intellectual level', similarly, is based on your ability to work hard and learn how to do whatever the fuck is in front of you. In short, it is the skill of learning.
4. Therefore, since it is the skill of learning, it is something that you can modify internally.
5. Therefore, there is zero reason to blame anything but yourself for the drop in "intelligence level." You are completely capable of changing your own outlook and abilities. You are lacking in competition right now, right? That's why you think that you're getting 'dumber.' You're pitting yourself against lazy people. The solution? Get off your ass, find that competition (in the LSAT, for example), and figure out how to take it out. In short, pit yourself against nonlazy people.

I know I sound a bit harsh, but you really sound like a kid right now. You're going to be going up against people who are starting on a second career. Expect everyone there to be just as 'smart' as you (if not smarter). The only difference is in motivation and study techniques.

I wouldn't necessarily say that Ivy League kids aren't "smarter" on average than other high school students. I guess it's debatable.

One person I know from Princeton had won some major science award in high school and received Presidential recognition. While still in his teens he had already conducted publishable research. But I'm not 100% sure of his background. He's only an acquaintance. I just remember that his accomplishments for his age were higher than the peers from my high school and college. His parents were also both Ph.D.'s in STEM, so they helped him get a quick start in his studies at an early age. I think he said he was doing partial differential equations at an earlier age than most people (who take it that is ).

At MIT, I think you may find medalists from the Math Olympiads and winners of other prestigious STEM awards in your class or as your roommate. Hard to say if they're "smarter" or just more skilled through hard work. I guess I feel like there's a greater chance that there'll be some truly outstanding students at the Ivies and top technical schools. And, likewise, I'd guess that there is a lower chance of these types of students at "bottom" schools. ...So I'm talking more on average here and not about any one particular person.

But, there's no doubt that environment, family background (e.g. wealth), etc. can greatly impact these outcomes. I just wouldn't go so far as to say that all students at the Ivies and top tech schools are there only because of these types of advantages they may have had (like saying everyone at Duke or UNC basketball is there only because of favorable backgrounds). That would be too strong of a statement. Although, I'm sure you did not mean it literally.

[jwinaz]

are you still in school? Maybe you can take a summer class at Harvard or a summer or semester at a "good" univ. in your area or a bunch of "hard" classes in your school?

This is a terrible idea. If you really want to challenge yourself because you have some kind of mental-midget Napoleon complex, don't do it in a way that will tank your LSAC GPA if you fail. Take a really hard science course for no credit at a local CC or try learning a new language or musical instrument. Do something that is both challenging and will enrich your life without the very likely negative consequences of bringing down a 3.7.

And take the LSAT.

Just to comment on summer classes at Ivies. I spent a summer at Columbia in NYC and the class was rigorous, but taught by a graduate student rather than the regular professor. I did feel that the class was a great learning experience, but just recognize that you may not actually get a regular prof. during the summers.

And even then, it's just hard to tell whether the professor's teaching style and requirements would make for a good learning exp. or challenge. There's no guarantee.

If you feel you haven't been challenged sufficiently and are worried about it, then maybe look for ways of doing that if you still have time before going to graduate school. I agree that you don't want to make a bad life decision based on an inaccurate assessment of your talents and interests.

[09042014]

85% on the SAT should get you around 85% on the LSAT. Maybe a bit worse. Maybe a bit better if you fucked up the Math on the SAT because there is no math on LSAT.

[Scotusnerd]

Wall of text.

What was impressive about your friend? Was it that he was a brainiac? No, it was that he had conducted publishable research at 15. I promise you that most of that came from him getting off his ass and doing SCIENCE! while his classmates were still awkwardly figuring out how to ask the girl who sits next to them to the prom.

I flat-out don't buy into the lazy view that we are not capable of learning to do things. That's bullshit. Sure, there are learning disabilities, but the average person has been taught to be lazy, sloppy, and stupid. Public school teaches us to be drones who 'absorb learning' from a 'master' and then throw it up all over a test (which somehow means we have "mastered the material". Pfft), advertising teaches us to mindlessly consume whatever they want us to, and most religions teach us to be docile and gentle. Not to say that there isn't some value in kindness or care towards others, but that doesn't mean we should be sweet, dulcet little sheep.

Anyway, none of that really matters. My purpose in stating those things was to make a motivational statement to get OP off his ass and doing stuff. The entitlement in dismissing his classmates is ill-founded, and if he tries that in law school, he will be in for a nasty shock when he gets his first C (even at a TTT, there are students that are quite capable of showing up this sort of thing).

No one gives a shit about what your intellectual level is. They care about what you have done, and what you are going to do for them.

Figure out how you study, what you need to study, and the personality of your teacher. Know those three things, and you have the tools to accomplish your goal of getting good grades in law school. Forget them, and you better hope that everyone else in the class couldn't find them either.

[hephaestus]

I just phrased it childishly to get attention

Yeah I'm done here.

Seriously.

[spleenworship]

Ivy/elite v. non-ivy/elite doesn't seem to matter as much as innate intelligence and working hard.

I have noticed that some people are TOO smart for law school. These are more practical classes and engaging in intellectual circle jerks re: morality/policy/logic is often pointless and leads some of the smarter students who prolly should've gotten PhDs or something instead to get burned out. IMO obviously.

[scifiguy]

Wall of text.

What was impressive about your friend? Was it that he was a brainiac? No, it was that he had conducted publishable research at 15. I promise you that most of that came from him getting off his ass and doing SCIENCE! while his classmates were still awkwardly figuring out how to ask the girl who sits next to them to the prom.

I flat-out don't buy into the lazy view that we are not capable of learning to do things. That's bullshit. Sure, there are learning disabilities, but the average person has been taught to be lazy, sloppy, and stupid. Public school teaches us to be drones who 'absorb learning' from a 'master' and then throw it up all over a test (which somehow means we have "mastered the material". Pfft), advertising teaches us to mindlessly consume whatever they want us to, and most religions teach us to be docile and gentle. Not to say that there isn't some value in kindness or care towards others, but that doesn't mean we should be sweet, dulcet little sheep.

Anyway, none of that really matters. My purpose in stating those things was to make a motivational statement to get OP off his ass and doing stuff. The entitlement in dismissing his classmates is ill-founded, and if he tries that in law school, he will be in for a nasty shock when he gets his first C (even at a TTT, there are students that are quite capable of showing up this sort of thing).

No one gives a shit about what your intellectual level is. They care about what you have done, and what you are going to do for them.

Figure out how you study, what you need to study, and the personality of your teacher. Know those three things, and you have the tools to accomplish your goal of getting good grades in law school. Forget them, and you better hope that everyone else in the class couldn't find them either.

Here's a question (a few actually). It's not meant to be an attack or some kind of elitist question or anyting. IT's a genuine one actually. And it relates to this discussion.

+Do you think literally anyone could play in the NBA or NFL if they just worked hard enough (assuming they were healthy and physically able)?

+Do you think literally anyone could get a PhD in math or physics?

+Are there no limits to what we can achieve in life?

I'm not suggesting law school requires a kind of super genius IQ or talent. I just wondering if there are simply things that no amt. of hard work would allow a person to accomplish? Do you think innate talent is at all necessary for any kind of acheievemetn?

Ok, I also bow out of the thread!

[scifiguy]

85% on the SAT should get you around 85% on the LSAT. Maybe a bit worse. Maybe a bit better if you fucked up the Math on the SAT because there is no math on LSAT.

Any stats that back this up, DF?

[Scotusnerd]

Here's a question (a few actually). It's not meant to be an attack or some kind of elitist question or anyting. IT's a genuine one actually. And it relates to this discussion.

+Do you think literally anyone could play in the NBA or NFL if they just worked hard enough (assuming they were healthy and physically able)?

+Do you think literally anyone could get a PhD in math or physics?

+Are there no limits to what we can achieve in life?

I'm not suggesting law school requires a kind of super genius IQ or talent. I just wondering if there are simply things that no amt. of hard work would allow a person to accomplish? Do you think innate talent is at all necessary for any kind of acheievemetn?

Ok, I also bow out of the thread!

Sure, I'll answer these. No, not anyone can. There is some genetics. A person who is mentally retarded or low-functioning autism-spectrum disorder will likely face almost insurmountable obstacles in becoming a lawyer. Similarly, a paraplegic cannot play in the NBA/NFL. There are some reasonable limits. But I believe that those limits are a lot lower than people imagine them to be. If the average person (doesn't matter what socioeconomic background. They could be a wal-mart employee of 30 years for all I care) came up to me and told me "I am too dumb to do what you're doing" I would call bullshit and tell them that if they want it, to get studying.

[spleenworship]

Here's a question (a few actually). It's not meant to be an attack or some kind of elitist question or anyting. IT's a genuine one actually. And it relates to this discussion.

+Do you think literally anyone could play in the NBA or NFL if they just worked hard enough (assuming they were healthy and physically able)?

+Do you think literally anyone could get a PhD in math or physics?

+Are there no limits to what we can achieve in life?

I'm not suggesting law school requires a kind of super genius IQ or talent. I just wondering if there are simply things that no amt. of hard work would allow a person to accomplish? Do you think innate talent is at all necessary for any kind of acheievemetn?

Ok, I also bow out of the thread!

Sure, I'll answer these. No, not anyone can. There is some genetics. A person who is mentally retarded or low-functioning autism-spectrum disorder will likely face almost insurmountable obstacles in becoming a lawyer. Similarly, a paraplegic cannot play in the NBA/NFL. There are some reasonable limits. But I believe that those limits are a lot lower than people imagine them to be. If the average person (doesn't matter what socioeconomic background. They could be a wal-mart employee of 30 years for all I care) came up to me and told me "I am too dumb to do what you're doing" I would call bullshit and tell them that if they want it, to get studying.

I used to think this way. Then I realized that, honestly, just like I'll never be coordinated enough to be in the NFL... 80% of the world's population is simply not smart enough for grad school. They're too caught up in a black and white worldview that simply cannot function with the ambiguity inherent in higher thought processes.