# Very intelligent character



## Xitra_Blud (Apr 10, 2014)

I have a very intelligent character who would speak in proper English and very fancy, big words. Problem is, I'm not good with putting big words properly in a sentence and I know a few fancy words but not enough words or their meanings to match his way of speaking. I go to the thesaurus but often times I wind using the words wrong. Anyone have any ideas on how I can make my character sound highly intelligence without having to worry to much about fancy words?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 10, 2014)

Using big, elaborate words is not necessarily a hallmark of intelligence. Rather, I'd suggest tailoring the character's observations and insights to depict them as the astute type.      

Another facet of intelligence is to make the character an expert at some task or occupation. A soldier can be a master tactician. A diplomat can be an accomplished negotiator, or even manipulator. There are many ways to showcase intelligence in this light.       

The character's internal thoughts on situations, or the actions of other characters, can illustrate intelligence as well. Further, wittiness portrayed in thought and dialogue can help to convey a sense of intelligence.     

Don't rely on dialogue alone to do the work for you. It should be only a fraction of overall characterization.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Apr 10, 2014)

I second TAS on this.  We have a very intelligent character in our WIP who uses some very common, and sometimes coarse, language.  Her intellect is displayed in her problem solving skills, how she puts together pieces of information like a puzzle.  She plays politics like a game, and thinks in terms of cards and game pieces.

I would also add that a very intelligent character is not an omnipotent one, though it is tempting to think they are and to write them that way.  Highly intelligent people can put the information together in the wrong order (or too soon with incomplete information, as they often try to extrapolate from incomplete data) and come up with the wrong answer - it's an answer that makes perfect sense, given what they're working with, but still wrong.  Highly intelligent people are also just as, of not more, prone to getting ideas in their heads that something is a certain way, and it can be very hard to shake them out of this way of thinking.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 10, 2014)

Xitra_Blud said:


> I have a very intelligent character who would speak in proper English and very fancy, big words. Problem is, I'm not good with putting big words properly in a sentence and I know a few fancy words but not enough words or their meanings to match his way of speaking. I go to the thesaurus but often times I wind using the words wrong. Anyone have any ideas on how I can make my character sound highly intelligence without having to worry to much about fancy words?



Even if the character knows a great many words, there will be certain words and phrases he favors. Model his speech on the speech of someone specific who sounds fancy, and if you can, run it by someone fancy and see what they think. Once you've got enough confirmed patterns, you can start mixing and matching to create new statements in the style of his previous statements, with maybe the occasional trip to the dictionary when he encounters a new situation. (And unless he's incredibly snooty, don't worry TOO much about how big his words are--he may know what a _quercus robur_ is, but he'll probably refer to it as an oak tree just the same.)


----------



## CupofJoe (Apr 11, 2014)

Some extremely intelligent people that I know are very shy and retiring. This can lead them to be seen as being rude and aggressive as a matter of pre-emptive self defence when [forced] to interact with people.
They may also have a tendency to seemingly be non-linear in their thought as they have had the conversation/discussion [with or without you] and come to their conclusion. You get the end result and not the intermediate steps. This can make even the simplest tasks and conversations hard to follow on occasions... 
Another thing I've noticed is that they may make friends with [seemingly] the strangest people. I know of a person with 2 PhDs and an international reputation in their academic field that can often be seen sitting and chatting with the drunks and homeless in town. Just chatting and sharing a cigarette.
And as others have said, they may also be very good at something specific like playing a musical instrument and use that as their social lubricant.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 11, 2014)

CupofJoe said:


> They may also have a tendency to seemingly be non-linear in their thought as they have had the conversation/discussion [with or without you] and come to their conclusion. You get the end result and not the intermediate steps. This can make even the simplest tasks and conversations hard to follow on occasions...



Speaking personally, this is a big one for me. If someone mentions a topic to me that they've read a little about, and I've read multiple authors who debated it, I may start referencing the ideas of those authors, then back up and start explaining more once it's clear the other person has no clue what I'm talking about.


----------



## KC Trae Becker (Apr 11, 2014)

If you set up your plot so that your intelligent person sometimes figures out the solutions to puzzles and answers to questions, before the reader, that would give the impression of intelligence.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 11, 2014)

I think as far as language goes, intelligence shows more in the precision of the words used rather than their length or obscurity.


----------



## CupofJoe (Apr 11, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> I think as far as language goes, intelligence shows more in the precision of the words used rather than their length or obscurity.


Ten items or fewer
With whom do you wish to talk?

[and here's hoping I got them right...]


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Apr 11, 2014)

Feo Takahari said:


> Speaking personally, this is a big one for me. If someone mentions a topic to me that they've read a little about, and I've read multiple authors who debated it, I may start referencing the ideas of those authors, then back up and start explaining more once it's clear the other person has no clue what I'm talking about.



Yay!  Someone else who cites sources in conversation.    Now I'm happy.


----------



## Malik (Apr 13, 2014)

Feo Takahari said:


> back up and start explaining more once it's clear the other person has no clue what I'm talking about.



I work with people who are up to their eyeballs in the arcane 8-10 hours a day. And by arcane, I mean they are studying things that, for all practical purposes, no one else in the world is studying. There is a lot of what Feo said above, especially when you have to talk to one of them about their project because it crosses into yours. They start at the middle, because they understand something so well that they tend to forget that you don't have any idea about it. Then, when they see the look on your face, they back up. Then they back up some more. 

A very common question in our line of work is, "Does that make sense?" It seems like we end every statement with it. Not because I think you're too dumb to understand what I'm saying, but because I'm unsure whether you have the fundamental base of knowledge to run alongside me on this. 

One problem with writing smart characters is that it's nearly impossible to write a character who's smarter than you are. It's easy to write dumb characters, but the only way to write a convincing smart character is to educate yourself on the things that the character is a genius about. Read any book by Michael Crichton. His main characters are geniuses, but then, so is he. The research he puts into some of his books would qualify for a postgraduate degree. You may just have to buckle down and do some serious homework if you're married to the idea of a character who really knows what he/she is talking about.

There's a Calvin and Hobbes strip where Susie and Calvin are standing at the bus stop, and Susie tells Calvin that she did her homework last night, then had her mother double-check it, and then she did the problems that she got wrong all over again to make sure she understood the assignment. Calvin looks at her and says, "You do all that work?" She says, "Of course." And he says, "And here, all this time, I thought you were smart."


----------



## Telcontar (Apr 13, 2014)

Language use is primarily a matter of education and culture, with intelligence a secondary factor. Is this character also a highly educated one? That's what the use of "fancy words" will show.

Showing intelligence is more about showing clarity of thought - deductions and inductions, going from evidence to the correct conclusion. Obviously, for a writer who ISN'T a genius we have to be able to fake the signs of a genius. I wrote about a brilliant general in one of my books and readers tell me he is effectively portrayed as smart by the way he "handles" people, and the way he plans, executes, and takes advantage of military maneuvers. 

Because we control the information the reader gets, we can skew it in such a way as to present the silhouette of intelligence without necessarily needing to possess the kind of intelligence we're writing about. The above military leader liked to teach little lessons to the people around him, small things that only he has figured out. Some of them are pretty clever (if I do say so myself) but I had to hope they built up into a believable pattern. Furthermore, of course, this character often arrives at correct answers with very little evidence (leaps of intuition have also long been associated with high intelligence) and is very rarely wrong, or taken by surprise.

Now that I've thought about it, I think the real central "sign" of intelligence is in being right a lot more often than being wrong (and preferably, for the reasons you had taken into consideration). Or at least, readers will _accept_ that as signaling intelligence.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 13, 2014)

Malik said:


> One problem with writing smart characters is that it's nearly impossible to write a character who's smarter than you are. It's easy to write dumb characters, but the only way to write a convincing smart character is to educate yourself on the things that the character is a genius about.



Yes, we may have to perform research, in a specific subject matter, to make a character speak more intelligently than we, ourselves, are capable of speaking on a topic. However, I do believe an author can write genius characters without being a genius themselves. 

The gift of revision affords the writer an opportunity to rework dialogue or internal thought over and over again until it's exactly as intended. Whether that means the prose carries a certain message regarding an obscure or specified bit of knowledge, or a certain precision of language, the time allowed in revision can enable our characters to perform better than we may in our own spontaneous thoughts, reactions, or spoken words. This effect can be harnessed to create characters who appear highly intelligent, even genius level...really anywhere along the intellectual spectrum.


----------



## The Dark One (Apr 17, 2014)

Whenever this topic comes up (as it regularly does) I always give the example of Prof Langdren (or whatever his name is) in the Da Vinci Code. We are expected to believe that this character (to whose thoughts we are constantly privy) is the number one world expert in religious iconography. And yet, I constantly guessed what was happening about five pages before he did! Even worse, being privy to his thoughts did not make me think 'these are the thoughts of a 55 yo religious iconography genius'. Instead, I was constantly thinking: 'these are the thoughts of a teenager with an attitude'.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Apr 17, 2014)

The Dark One said:


> Whenever this topic comes up (as it regularly does) I always give the example of Prof Langdren (or whatever his name is) in the Da Vinci Code. We are expected to believe that this character (to whose thoughts we are constantly privy) is the number one world expert in religious iconography. And yet, I constantly guessed what was happening about five pages before he did! Even worse, being privy to his thoughts did not make me think 'these are the thoughts of a 55 yo religious iconography genius'. Instead, I was constantly thinking: 'these are the thoughts of a teenager with an attitude'.



I agree, this is a good example of swinging for genius and missing.

An example of swinging and hitting it out of the park?  Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child's character FBI Special Agent Aloysius Pendergast.


----------



## monyo (Apr 17, 2014)

This is from the sci-fi genre, but the characters of The Blight and Old One from _Fire Upon the Deep_ are two examples of characters written with very high (read: beyond human) intelligence. Though I'm not sure how successful I really think the author was in portraying it - he (V. Vinge) himself said it was basically impossible to write characters that much smarter than he was, though of course that's debatable, and his characters weren't merely genius level humans but post-human intelligence. 

From my memory their advanced intelligence was mainly shown through their ability to orchestrate events and find meaning in things that weren't directly explained to the reader. Instead, other characters would discuss the implausibility of anyone being able to do the thing that was currently happening to them, along with vague references to how it had been done. He also spent basically the entire prologue, plus another chapter early on, describing the immense intelligence of The Blight, which sort of sets up the premise for the entire story.

Just an idea, but the OP could consider modeling the intelligent character off a real-life intelligent person as well. Need an extraordinarily clever political coup? Look to Napoleon or Dick Cheney. A math genius? Consider Ramanujan or Grothendieck. Someone who got rich starting from nothing? Chris Gardner is an example. Admittedly this may not help with the dialogue, but even there intelligent people can be pretty weak. Niels Bohr was supposedly so bad at writing he would dictate his papers to his mother, while Einstein supposedly was somewhat the same with words (didn't speak until 3, supposedly wasn't fluent until 9, said all his life he thought in terms of images and later would carefully translate those ideas into words).


----------



## Scribble (Apr 18, 2014)

My take on what makes genius...

Education and deep thought can help you develop a capacity for linear reasoning - employing procedural logic based on a foundation of knowledge. This is what we call an "expert". Above average intelligence required.

Lateral reasoning, perceiving links and patterns that others do not is required for genius - but does not define it alone. A mind tuned to make jumps beyond what would be obvious to a linear thinker required. Some might call it "intuition".

True genius is a heightened capacity for both - to make the leaps others cannot, and to follow those leaps down paths to ends that are beyond average people.

Someone of above human intelligence would be inscrutable to average people, though highly intelligent people would possibly suspect their intelligence. Mostly, they would be misunderstood, isolated. They would be unable to share their thoughts, as too much background would need to be stuffed into the conversation for the other party to comprehend. Possibly ending in frustration or resignation as they would be able to communicate only the basics, confounding the listener.

They may even appear as simple or crazy to the average person.


----------



## buyjupiter (Apr 18, 2014)

Also, it may be worthwhile really examining how Sherlock Holmes has been written and rewritten over the years--even including the Robert Downey Jr version.


----------



## Jabrosky (Apr 18, 2014)

Intelligence is notoriously tricky and controversial to define, but I prefer to think of it as a measure of cognitive flexibility and adaptability. If you look at all the creatures we regard as stupid, the preponderance of their activity falls in line with innately programmed instincts. Said instincts can sometimes code for very elaborate behaviors like those of ants or bees, but they can't do much beyond these. On the other hand we humans are born with a much more malleable intelligence that allows us to expand our behavioral repertoire beyond instinct and adapt to all manner of habitats. However, this same malleability means we are depend more on society and the environment to teach how us to behave and adapt.

To put it in a layperson's language, I see intelligence as the potential to learn. If your character learns quickly, that might demonstrate their greater intelligence.


----------



## Telcontar (Apr 18, 2014)

I haven't read _The Da Vinci Code_, but if I want to convince a reader that a character is a genius I'm definitely not going to share that person's thoughts. It's one thing to show the convincing effects of intelligence. Showing the building blocks means you need to possess them yourself.

My smartest characters are generally going to be like black boxes. You have no idea what's going on inside (cuz I doubt I can show it effectively...).


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 18, 2014)

I guess if everyone's talking about intelligence, I might as well talk more about my personal experience of it. It feels really arrogant to talk in these terms, but I guess it's less arrogant if I'm honest and straightforward about it.

I do above average on most tests of intelligence that don't involve memory, and very, very well at tests that relate to solving problems in an ordered and logical fashion. This is actually a very limited talent--how many of the things you do are based on ordered logic?--but it can come up in some interesting contexts, like beating a video game by determining what rules the AI always follows, or getting a good score on a multiple choice test by eliminating all the answers that are illogical.

This does not mean I have any talent for lateral thinking. In fact, I'm terrible at it. I conceive of a logical puzzle with a logical solution according to the bounds of the problem I've been given, and if the solution is outside the expected bounds, I often find myself stumped.

Nor does it give me any boost to memorization. I can learn a bit faster if the things I'm learning are logical, but the more things I have to learn at once, the harder it is for me to keep them all straight, and the more likely I am to trip over myself. (For instance, I failed in my attempts to learn Spanish, because I got mixed up while trying to keep track of all the different words I was supposed to be learning.)

Above all, I do not have any inherent talent for outthinking or manipulating anyone who can see what I'm doing. If they've already done their planning, I can recognize and respond to the patterns in their plans, but if they see my response, they can adapt to counter it, and I'm back at square one. (In particular, I am _horrendous_ at chess.)

I'm not sure whether I qualify as a "genius." I'm certainly not a scholastic genius--I get worse grades than people who're great at memorizing and regurgitating facts and figures. Nor am I a genius at any form of competition. I just have a semi-useful ability that I've never really had to work for.

(I would like to think I'm an artistic genius, but that's for readers to determine . . .)


----------



## monyo (Apr 18, 2014)

On the subject of "genius," there was an interesting article in _Chronicle of Higher Education_ a while back. It traces the development and meaning of the term from the 18th century up to the present. Largely confirms my theory that it is one of those words which was coined without a specific meaning, and people have been trying to retroactively define it ever since. Of course I still throw it around as much as the next guy - it gets the message across in casual conversation well enough.


----------



## Addison (Apr 18, 2014)

There's different kinds of genius. Someone can be a culinary genius, automotive genius, animal genius, computer genius etc. Just because someone's a genius doesn't mean they talk like they graduated a fancy boarding school. They'll use slang and terms associated with their field of genius. Whether they're talking about the field itself or things in general. A culinary genius may say, "kneading the problem" in place of "working the chinks out". A computer genius may say "She's a few gigabytes short of a hard drive." 

See how it works? This genius could also carry into your character's home environment. The automotive genius will have car magazines, engine schematics for posters, hub-cab styled plates etc. The culinary genius could have incense that smells like great dishes. 

The worlds of geniuses are like playgrounds for writers.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 19, 2014)

monyo said:


> On the subject of "genius," there was an interesting article in _Chronicle of Higher Education_ a while back. It traces the development and meaning of the term from the 18th century up to the present. Largely confirms my theory that it is one of those words which was coined without a specific meaning, and people have been trying to retroactively define it ever since. Of course I still throw it around as much as the next guy - it gets the message across in casual conversation well enough.



The article only went back to the 18th century? That's useless. As an English word "genius" goes back to the 14th century, but it's from the Latin "genius" which is far, far older.

genius (n.)
late 14c., "tutelary god (classical or pagan)," from Latin genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent;" also "prophetic skill," originally "generative power," from root of gignere "beget, produce"


----------



## monyo (Apr 19, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> The article only went back to the 18th century? That's useless. As an English word "genius" goes back to the 14th century, but it's from the Latin "genius" which is far, far older.
> 
> genius (n.)
> late 14c., "tutelary god (classical or pagan)," from Latin genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent;" also "prophetic skill," originally "generative power," from root of gignere "beget, produce"



Then I suppose that disconfirms my hypothesis that it was coined without a specific meaning. Instead the specific meaning just got lost somewhere along the way. I think "useless" might be going a bit far, but I'm not going to bother defending it when a) I didn't write it, and b) the link is right there to show what it says and doesn't. If it was a useless comment, then I've already wasted enough space in the database with that one and this one.

One could argue that it does have a specific meaning and I just don't know what it is, but I think the linked article at least debunks that much. The tl;dr version would be that academia spent decades (or more?) trying to study and define it, only to reject the concept and have it become widely adopted by the rest of us.

Thanks for the heads up, though. Always happy to be politely corrected when I'm wrong.

Edit: On reexamination, I believe the key confusion comes from this quote:



> Geniuses, in the modern sense of the word, have been spoken about since only the Age of Enlightenment.



Emphasis on "in the modern sense of the word."


----------



## Terry Greer (Apr 23, 2014)

Those that are intelligent see pothers around them as slow,dim,stupid etc. Depending on the the character themselves this can make them compassionate and helpful or even farthery (such as Endevour or The Doctor or Cadfael ) or supercilious and condescending (such as Sherlock) or unfeeling (such as Moriarty or The Master).

Intelligence itself has no moral compass.   

It also depends on how self-confident the intelligent person is. Someone very intelligent may hide it as they feel themselves to be wrong.
Or if sneaky they may attempt to trap the less intelligent into logical traps.


----------



## Scribble (Apr 23, 2014)

The short story Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes is in my mind as I read through this thread. If you haven't read it, I recommend it, it's wonderfully written and right on topic. The main character is a simple man who undergoes a scientific study - a treatment to make him more intelligent.

It is now in the public domain, so here's a link to a pdf copy:

http://www.oglethorpe.edu/faculty/~...ents/Keyes, Daniel - Flowers for Algernon.pdf


----------



## Scribble (Apr 23, 2014)

Hopefully, someone will find this useful rather than irritating as I am about to make claims about my own intelligence.

Although I feel self-conscious about saying so, I take no credit for my own marbles, they just are what they are. There are many people brighter than I, though I can safely say from tests and life experience that I am in the top end in terms of grey matter. In any case, using a forum handle "Scribble" rather than my real name saves me some embarrassment for tooting my own horn. 

My mother taught me to read fluently by 3. I was reading cereal box ingredients, and pronouncing them correctly by 4. Thus, I expanded my knowledge and understanding of the world quite early. I was tagged as a "bright" child. I didn't have to go to regular classes, but went to a special program where I could learn at my own pace. I seem to remember most everything I have ever heard or read.

A few things stand out from my life experience.

When I was 5, I used to play with a world globe at my grandparent's house. My aunt was amazed when I told her about tectonic plate theory without ever hearing about it before. It was quite evident that the continents had been connected and were drifting apart. 

They had me tested for IQ and it was not genius level, but just below. So smart enough to do many things, but not smart enough to solve the world's problems in the blink of an eye.

As a young child, I found most other children to be "childish" and preferred the company of adults. I had interests that were beyond the capacity or interest of my friends, and so I always felt a bit isolated. When I returned to "regular stream" school, I ended up getting into fights. If bullies would taunt me in class, I would cut them down quickly with words - but then had to face their fists in the schoolyard. I tended to use psychology to compensate for my lack of fighting skills.

At a summer job, I was fiddling with a notepad thinking about permutations. I hadn't taken any classes on probabilities, I was simply wondering if there was a way to know how many permutations of lottery numbers there are. I started with a small set of numbers and felt a tingle when I realized that if you multiply 4x3x2x1 etc... for the number of possible values, you can know mathematically. I was so aglow with this that I told my boss when he came to see what I was doing. He was not very pleased with me. He did not see the amazing thing that I saw, he had more mundane concerns, like me selling to customers. In college I was slightly disappointed to learn that someone had already figured that out, and it was called Factorial.

In high school, I was bored as hell and got into a lot of trouble. If I was interested in the class, I scored a high 90. If the teacher was dull, or the subject too easy, I never went to class and skated a 65 by doing well on exams but not handing in much work. Intellectually, I was unchallenged. I read some philosophy, picking apart the strange ideas of dead philosophers, partly out of interest and partly to try to impress girls that I was reading brainy stuff, but I don't think it ever worked.

In school, even college, I grew frustrated with the repetition. I always got it on the first go. If we were learning aspects of computer programming, I had to sit through the teacher repeating over and over for those who did not get it immediately. One textbook was not enough for me. I always went out and read 5 or 6 on the topic, and before the end of the course, I was pushing the professor to the end of their knowledge. I scored high nineties in most of my classes. 

In a statistics course, the professor put a formula on the board and started working through data. Something was not right, not logical with the formula. Nobody said anything, so I doubted myself for a few minutes but eventually, I raised my hand and pointed it out. He told me I was wrong and it was exactly what was in the textbook. I persisted, stating the book must be wrong. He was annoyed with me, for I looked like a regular smarty-pants, but I was being respectful. A TA looked at it as well, and they realized that the textbook had an error and that I was right. I had taken only 3 lectures thus far in statistics.

I went into computer programming because I thought it would keep me from getting bored. Everything gets easy for me very quickly. Even now as I waste time writing this while I should be working, I have a complex problem waiting for me, expressed in a panicky email from our financial analyst. I know I will solve it, and they will continue to work, because that is what I do. I fix complicated problems in complex systems and it fills the day. I would go bananas if I didn't have that to do.

Those things all are very nice and fine for making a living as a software analyst, but there is a downside. People come to me with ideas, bright, shiny, hopeful ideas, and in a shaved fraction of a second I see all the flaws in their plan. If I let my mouth run off, they will think I am simply being "negative", "discouraging". If I let my instincts go, I will bulldoze their dreams with my rapid fire logic. "How do you know it won't work?", they ask. I know, I just know because my mind without me trying, already ran down all possible paths and I see in my mind what will happen.

I am always right. That might sound great, but it isn't. It makes me an asshole. One of the hardest lessons I have had to teach myself is how to let people make mistakes. I cannot change their feeling that they are right with my words. I cannot always make them see what is clear in my mind. I can do this at work with the very smart people who pay me to be a little bit smarter. But in my personal life, I can be, and have been, a juggernaut with my mind. It can be much like a weapon, and you have to be careful with it. 

I have grown bored with software, so I focus my interests on psychology, sociology, physics, cosmology, philosophy. I listen to all the university lectures that are made public. You can find lectures from MIT, Yale, Stanford, etc... all on Youtube. That keeps my mind busy. I decided to try writing fiction a few years ago, and that keeps my mind busy. There are wonderful things that have come to me from having some marbles. The gift truly came from my mother who taught me to read, played games with me, talked with me as an adult would, never babying me in intellectual terms. She is very intelligent herself. She was valedictorian and today writes on theological topics and is a spiritual director in her church. She left behind academic pursuits and focused more on people.

I hope that you don't find this to seem arrogant or that I am a blowhard. I am not shy to write about myself, at 42 years, I have a pretty good sense of humor about myself, and have no illusions about my greatness. Rather, I am full of plenty of flaws to help balance out any advantage I might appear to have in the brains department.

I hope that someone finds these perspectives useful for their writing.


----------



## The Dark One (Apr 24, 2014)

Quite frankly, I would have thought most people here are way above average in the IQ stakes - although that's not really what the thread is about. I salute Scribble for his bravery and honesty in putting that out there. His skill with problem solving might well be useful for the OP or others with similar beasts to slay.

For what it's worth I recognise some of Scribble's work and social problems. I'm always being accused of negativity at work when I point out problems (and solutions) with others' schemes and I've also had to learn to compensate socially. (When my first wife left she told me my mind was like a vast relentless machine that was always smashing her down - kinda hard to hear something like that without being affected. Fortunately my second wife is more resilient.)

My experience was different in other ways. I was tagged as 'special' from very early days and the many tests to which the authorities subjected kids in NSW all confirmed that. (I won't quote numbers.) I was sent off to the special school for clever people and everyone made a big fuss of me, with the result that my high school days were a total disaster. My inherent laziness and hedonism, coupled with a community-bestowed sense of entitlement gave me the impression that I would never have to work. I was wrong.

Fortunately I snapped out of it around my mid-twenties. I had never ceased my own personal education and had been reading lots of historiography and theoretical physics - Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, in particular lit a fire under me and I realised that what I was missing was discipline. I had never finished anything.

I did the HSC again (the Australian Higher School Certificate) and by then, being interested in learning and ready to work hard at it, I aced the exams, got into law school, and just about everything in life has been fantastic ever since (except for that first wife, obviously).

So, some bullet points to take out of my experience:
- smart characters can be vulnerable in development, leaving them in need of a vital component
- sometimes you have to hide your intelligence (or dilute it) to preserve the feelings of others
- smart characters recognise patterns and effects that have been staring everyone else in the face without them picking up on it (that's the problem solving thing).

Scribble, sounds like they got your IQ test wrong.


----------



## Scribble (Apr 24, 2014)

One of the challenges of having brains is the learning of discipline. The brightest mind does not always make the best academic.

When everything comes easy to you, you miss an opportunity to learn the most important skill for success: *how to grind it out.*

Linear progression to me appears dull, safe, predictable - anyone can do it. It's the leaps that are exciting, being able to perceive the solution hidden right in front of everyone if you only assemble the pieces in a new way. The downside is that many bright people start things but don't finish them. This can make less gifted people feel frustrated that they are "throwing away their talent". 

Something even more subtle is the fact that the leaps make you appear brilliant... and there is insecurity in looking dumb. Nobody loves it more than when apparently smart people do very dumb things. Just look at the popularity of the American television series The Big Bang Theory. So, smart people can shy away from doing linear thing - but that is where you learn to grind.

I had to learn how to work hard, the hard way. In my jobs, they always put me where I could shine - solution building, problem solving, with a team of people to do the grinding. When I started my own consulting firm, I had to do this myself. I learned there how to grind it out all night to solve the problem - when there were no leaps but only brute force testing of different approaches, I hated it, but there was a kind of rhythm to it, like rowing. Over and over, there's a kind of pleasure to be found in it, a simple pleasure of repetition, like music.

I was quite arrogant in my early years, but thankfully I've had plenty of chances to fail, and that's the fuel we need to learn to try again, and again. When all you do is succeed, you miss the chance to develop skills critical to achieving a richer experience.


----------



## Jabrosky (Apr 24, 2014)

Scribble said:


> One of the challenges of having brains is the learning of discipline. The brightest mind does not always make the best academic.
> 
> When everything comes easy to you, you miss an opportunity to learn the most important skill for success: *how to grind it out.*
> 
> ...


Last time I took an IQ test, I got a score I would consider mediocre (107), but nonetheless I can relate to the experience of discipline being an issue when you're talented that something. There are a small number of tasks I can perform with barely any difficulty, but I'm so used to breezing through these that I never learned to put effort into anything I wasn't so good at. I tend to think that if there's something I am not naturally good at, there's no use in pursuing it and that instead I should focus on my strengths.

On the other hand my dad has told me that, when he was a kid, he lacked any special talent whatsoever and so had to work hard for everything. That kind of work ethic has earned him a loving wife, two children, and a career that pays well. By contrast I'm stuck living under his roof with no clear idea what the hell I want to do with my life even though I'm already 24. On an intellectual level I know I should probably learn from my dad's strategy, but somehow I'm afraid to even try.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 24, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> ...my dad has told me that, when he was a kid, he lacked any special talent whatsoever and so had to work hard for everything. That kind of work ethic has earned him a loving wife, two children, and a career that pays well.



"Talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented individual from the successful one is a lot of hard work."
- Stephen King


----------



## Scribble (Apr 24, 2014)

The Dark One said:


> Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, in particular lit a fire under me



I watch Cosmos quite regularly, something I flip on before I go to sleep, it leaves me with a peaceful feeling and a font of things to think about as I drift off. I watched an episode last night, in fact 



The Dark One said:


> So, some bullet points to take out of my experience:
> - smart characters can be vulnerable in development, leaving them in need of a vital component
> - sometimes you have to hide your intelligence (or dilute it) to preserve the feelings of others
> - smart characters recognise patterns and effects that have been staring everyone else in the face without them picking up on it (that's the problem solving thing).



Great points on characters. I think it was touched upon nicely in some posts, but specifically what are common "fatal flaws" of highly intelligent characters? Leaning a little on the D&D distinction between INT and WIS to make the examples simpler...

*Fatal flaws of highly intelligent characters*

- *Disregard of ideas from sources that appear to be "unintelligent". *The highly intelligent wizard tosses out the suggestion from the Gully Dwarf. The wise cleric takes that idea seriously and saves the day, though the wizard got crushed by the runaway Gnomish Destruction Device.
- *Preference for complex solutions rather than simple ones. *The dwarf warrior suggested they defend the castle with oil and rocks from above, a suggestion mocked by the wizard. The wizard creates an elaborate defense that fails due to a subtle design flaw, allowing the goblin horde to infiltrate the castle. The dwarf was right.
- *Assumption that their calculations/plans are flawless. *Due to a stellar track record of creating good plans and correct calculations, they make the fatal assumption that their current plans are without flaws.
- *Challenge with communicating ideas successfully to 'regular' people.* The wizard tries to warn the king of impending danger, of a rift in the fabric of reality that may allow demons into the castle as a result of the experiments of his chief alchemist, but he speaks in metaphysical terms that baffle the king, he disregards the warning. The kingdom is overrun by demons from Acheron.
- *Arrogance.* The wizard does not trust anyone else to operate the Gnomish Device, they are not clever enough and will muck it up somehow. Wizard trips on his robe and falls into a pit of spikes.
- *Hurting the feelings of / insulting others by criticizing their plans* The wizard tears apart the suggestion of the ranger, who then decides the party is not to her liking, she leaves. Walking through the Dark Forest, the party is captured and eaten by owlbears - the ranger was of course an expert in owlbear trap detection and removal.


----------



## Scribble (Apr 24, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> Last time I took an IQ test, I got a score I would consider mediocre (107), but nonetheless I can relate to the experience of discipline being an issue when you're talented that something. There are a small number of tasks I can perform with barely any difficulty, but I'm so used to breezing through these that I never learned to put effort into anything I wasn't so good at. I tend to think that if there's something I am not naturally good at, there's no use in pursuing it and that instead I should focus on my strengths.
> 
> On the other hand my dad has told me that, when he was a kid, he lacked any special talent whatsoever and so had to work hard for everything. That kind of work ethic has earned him a loving wife, two children, and a career that pays well. By contrast I'm stuck living under his roof with no clear idea what the hell I want to do with my life even though I'm already 24. On an intellectual level I know I should probably learn from my dad's strategy, but somehow I'm afraid to even try.



Every healthy human has a desire to be thought of as a sane, competent, dignified person. That is what keeps us in our seats on planes, keeps us filing taxes, wearing clothes in public, not screaming in libraries, and helps societies maintain reasonable stability and moral norms. At the same time, that same social force presses upon us in ways that can lead us away from what might most fulfill us as people.

How do you get around that? There is a reason Anthony Robbins sells all those DVD sets. Everyone has the same problem! Some people find ways around it, either by luck or by effort. 

- Nobody wants to appear foolish. 
- Everyone thinks that everyone else is looking at them. 
- We tend to act in ways to minimize risk to how people perceive us socially

Believe me, I feel the SAME way you do, and so does everyone else. I have a large project I am leading now. I have to present to our CEO, our Shareholders, and this project CANNOT fail. How do I deal with the terror?

Sometimes I do it because I have no choice. It is my job, and I have to feed my kids and I am trapped in the situation of having to do this, so I simply buckle down and do it. I have the benefit of confidence in my skills, I've done this sort of thing before, so I can do it again.

If you haven't done it once, you don't have the benefit of past experience to say "you did it before, you can do it again." That is hard. I face it with writing fiction. I'm new to it, there's a lot I haven't done. What you don't want to happen is to see 24 turn into 42 without taking any risks.

I have played it safe in many ways, and I am pushing myself out of my comfort zone in order that I experience more of life. I didn't take much time for friends, being tied up with work and the raising of children. I started going to meetup groups, and found people who (unlike most people) enjoy discussing philosophy, cosmology, scifi, and all the 'weird' stuff I like. I was pretty shy to do that before, just show up and talk with people I don't know in that kind of setting. 

There are riches in the world and in yourself to be found, but you have to take a step. It is scary, but the rewards are great.


----------

