text:
SMITHFIELD, Va., June 30, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Smithfield Foods, Inc. (NYSE: SFD) announced today that it intends to offer $350 million aggregate principal amount of its convertible senior notes due 2013 in a registered underwritten public offering. In connection with the offering, Smithfield intends to grant the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to $50 million aggregate principal amount of additional convertible notes solely to cover over-allotments, if any.
The notes will be convertible subject to certain conditions into cash or a combination of cash and shares of Smithfield's common stock. The interest rate, conversion rate, offering price and other terms of the convertible notes will be determined by negotiations between the underwriters and Smithfield.
Smithfield expects to use a portion of the proceeds from the offering to fund the net cost of convertible note hedge and warrant transactions that Smithfield expects to enter into with affiliates of certain underwriters of the convertible notes (representing the cost to us of the convertible note hedge transactions, partially offset by the proceeds to us of the warrant transactions). In addition, Smithfield expects to use the proceeds from the offering to pay down one of its short-term credit lines and its U.S. revolving credit agreement. Receipt of net proceeds from the offering would also result in termination of the commitments of the lenders under a bridge facility that Smithfield put in place pending the sale of its beef operations, a transaction it currently expects will close during the second quarter of its fiscal year 2009.
Smithfield intends to enter into privately-negotiated warrant transactions relating to its common stock with the option counterparties, pursuant to which it may be obligated to issue shares of its common stock. The convertible note hedge transactions are expected to reduce the potential dilution to Smithfield's common stock upon any conversion of the convertible notes. However, the warrant transactions could separately have a dilutive effect to the extent that the price of Smithfield's common stock exceeds the applicable strike price of the warrants. If the underwriters exercise their over- allotment option to purchase additional convertible notes, the notional size of the convertible note hedge transactions and warrant transactions will be automatically increased so that they also relate to a number of shares of Smithfield's common stock initially issuable upon conversion of the additional convertible notes.
In connection with establishing their initial hedge of these convertible note hedge and warrant transactions, Smithfield has been advised that the option counterparties and/or their respective affiliates expect to enter into various over-the-counter derivative transactions with respect to its common stock concurrently with or shortly after the pricing of the convertible notes and, shortly after the completion of the underwriters' participation in the distribution of the convertible notes, purchase Smithfield's common stock or other securities, including the convertible notes, in secondary market transactions. These activities could have the effect of increasing or preventing a decline in the price of Smithfield's common stock concurrently with or following the pricing of the convertible notes. In addition, the option counterparties and/or their respective affiliates expect to modify their hedge position following the pricing of the convertible notes from time to time by entering into or unwinding various derivative transactions with respect to Smithfield's common stock and/or by purchasing or selling Smithfield's common stock or other securities, including the convertible notes, in secondary market transactions (and are likely to do so during any observation period related to the conversion of the convertible notes). These activities could have the effect of increasing, preventing a decline in or adversely impacting the value of Smithfield's common stock and/or the value of the convertible notes.
Citi, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and JPMorgan are serving as joint book-running managers for the offering.
The convertible notes offering is being made pursuant to a registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available for review on the SEC's website at www.SEC.gov. This press release is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy the securities described herein, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any jurisdiction in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. The offering of the convertible notes will be made only by means of a prospectus supplement and related prospectus. Copies of the preliminary prospectus supplement and related prospectus for the offering can be obtained from the joint-book running managers for the offering at the following addresses or telephone numbers:
Citi: Citi-Brooklyn Army Terminal, 140 58th St., 8th Fl., Brooklyn, NY 11220 (800) 831-9146
Goldman, Sachs & Co.: Prospectus Department, 85 Broad St., New York, NY 10004
Fax (212) 902-9316 or email email@example.com JPMorgan: Prospectus Library, 4 Chase Metrotech Center, CS Level, Brooklyn, NY
11245, (718) 242-8002
With sales of $11 billion, Smithfield Foods is the leading processor and marketer of fresh pork and packaged meats in the United States, as well as the largest producer of hogs.
This news release contains "forward-looking" statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. The forward-looking statements includes statements concerning the Company's outlook for the future, as well as other statements of beliefs, future plans and strategies or anticipated events, and similar expressions concerning matters that are not historical facts. The Company's forward-looking information and statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the statements. These risks and uncertainties include the availability and prices of live hogs and cattle, raw materials, fuel and supplies, food safety, livestock disease, live hog production costs, product pricing, the competitive environment and related market conditions, hedging risk, operating efficiencies, changes in interest rate and foreign currency exchange rates, access to capital, the investment performance of the Company's pension plan assets and the availability of legislative funding relief, the cost of compliance with environmental and health standards, adverse results from on-going litigation, actions of domestic and foreign governments, labor relations issues, credit exposure to large customers, the ability to make effective acquisition, disposition, merger and joint venture transactions and successfully integrate newly acquired businesses into existing operations and other risks and uncertainties described under the caption "Risk Factors" in the preliminary prospectus supplement and related prospectus. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward- looking statements because actual results may differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the statements. Any forward-looking statement that the Company makes speaks only as of the date of such statement, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Comparisons of results for current and any prior periods are not intended to express any future trends or indications of future performance, unless expressed as such, and should only be viewed as historical data.
SOURCE Smithfield Foods, Inc.
Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved
News Provided by COMTEX


text:
Skip to content
1-888-762-8736(M-F 8:00am-5:00pm CST)
1-877-218-7353(M-F 8:00am-5:00pm CST)
1-800-555-5555(M-F 8:00am-5:00pm CST)
See all log-ins
Online Store
Upgrade or Renew Titanium
Visit our online store.
Want to stay up to date on all Trend Micro's news, products and more?
Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Connect with us on
| | | |

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Must See: American High Style: Fashioning a National Collection at the Brooklyn MuseumHere's a fashion treat for those of you in the city this holiday weekend or in the next 2 months.The Brooklyn Museum, it's an incredible museum that's just a few train stops out of Manhattan, marks its new relationship with the Costume Institute at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, with an exhibition of some of the most renowned objects from its esteemed costume collection.The fashion exhibition consists of approximately eighty-five dressed mannequins and a selection of hats, shoes, sketches, and other fashion-related material that will reintroduce the collection, long in storage, to the publicAmerican High Style is organized in groups representing the most important strengths of the collection. Works by the first generation of American women designers such as Bonnie Cashin, Elizabeth Hawes, and Claire McCardell are featured, as well as material created by Charles James, Norman Norell, Gilbert Adrian, and other important American designers. Also included are works by French designers who had an important influence on American women and fashion, such as Charles Frederick Worth, Elsa Schiaparelli, Jeanne Lanvin, Jeanne Paquin, Madeleine Vionnet, and Christian DiorPublished on May 28, 2010
American Fashion On View
American fashion, Bonnie Cashin, Brooklyn Museum, Charles Frederick Worth, Charles James, Christian Dior, Claire McCardell, Costume Institute, Elizabeth Hawes, Elsa Schiaparelli, fashion, fashion exhibition, Gilbert Adrian, Jeanne Lanvin, Jeanne Paquin, Madeleine Vionnet, Museum, Norman Norell, NY, The Metropolitan Museum of Art


text:
School of General Studies
Academic Resource Center
Desk Attendant Job Description
Desk attendants are an integral part of the Academic Resource Center. As a desk attendant you will interact with students, tutors, staff, and non staff of Columbia University. The majority of your interaction will be with General Studies students and the tutors hired by the Academic Resource Center.
Job Description:


text:
The POV Candleholder is a study in graphic goodness (and the alluring power of optical illusions). From different angles this wall-mounted holder appears to be a flat drawing, from others it takes on a three-dimensional appearance and seems to float in mid-air. Hang it with a group for maximum effect.
Fits standard tealight (not included).
Enjoy 10% off your first order*


text:
Sherwin-Williams COLOR To Go® lets you offer your clients the utmost of ease and confidence in selecting colors.
Sample a wide variety of colors and a broad range of custom tints in the Sherwin-Williams COLOR palette. Samples are provided in small-sized Twist-n-Pour™ containers and will cover approximately 75 square feet, so you can get a true representation of the color.
- More color options than any other competitive sample program on market today
- Sample color on the actual surface where it will be applied
- Better assessments of environmental factors affecting color, such as natural and artificial light
- Takes the guesswork out of choosing the right color
To learn more about COLOR To Go®, visit your local Sherwin-Williams store, contact your Sherwin-Williams representative or call 1-800-524-5979 to have a Sherwin-Williams representative contact you.


text:
Genital herpes is a lifelong condition with no cure however, there are medications that you can take to treat the symptoms and prevent future outbreaks. Early treatment is important to decreases the chance of passing the infection to others and reduce the risk of complications.
Treatment involves:
Revision Information
- Reviewer: David Horn, MD
- Review Date: 05/2014 -
- Update Date: 10/16/2014 -


text:
Top Searches:
Horoscopes |
Salaries |
Washam |
July 22, 2013
Links: Australian Glass and the Pacific Northwest at Museum of Glass
Wsu Master Gardeners of Pierce County at Master Gardener of Pierce County
The Shape of Things by Neil Labute at Dukesbay Theater
All events for today »
Submit an event | All events
This is a no-holds barred sketch movie starring Academy Award-winner Adrien Brody as "Flirty Harry," a tough, no nonsense cop with a soft middle and a flair for fashion; Rob Schneider in a dual role as both a sleazy, horny psychologist and a curmudgeonly porn critic alongside his enthusiastic counterpart Michelle Rodriguez; Lindsay Lohan living out her fantasy of taking an ultimate revenge on the salivating paparazzi who haunt her, and Ari Shaffir as "The Amazing Racist," whose hilariously offensive hidden-camera encounters with members of different ethnic and minority groups push everyone's buttons.
Rated R for strong crude and sexual content, graphic nudity, pervasive language and drug use.
Visit the official site
Cast: Rob Schneider, Lindsay Lohan, Adrien Brody, Michelle Rodriguez, Ari Shaffir
Produced by: Robert B. Shapiro, Ken Pringle
Directed by: Vince Offer
Written by: Ari Shaffir, Vince Offer, Ken Pringle
Running time: 1hr 24min
Opens: Mar 22, 2013 Limited


text:
We are here to help. Learn about Parallels products, support options, downloads and online documentation.
Connect with fellow Parallels users and our Support Team for product discussions, support tips and solutions.
Parallels Support is available 24X7. Please select your product above for a selection of self-service guides, video tutorials and information on how to contact Parallels Customer Support.


text:
How did three Danes end up being tortured in Lebanon?
At 15 Omar went to Guantanamo. Here's his story
18 Jul 2011 13:37 GMT | Arts & Culture, US & Canada, Libya, United States
Producer Jeremy Young on the reality of filming in Libya near borders and oil facilities in this video extra from The US and the new Middle East: Libya."I can't tell you how many times on this trip someone has taken their hand and put it over the lens of our camera. We've actually had material that was forcibly deleted off of our cameras ... there hasn't been a lot of freedom for us to operate."
Source: Al Jazeera
Content on this website is for general information purposes only. Your comments
are provided by your own free will and you take sole responsibility for any direct
or indirect liability. You hereby provide us with an irrevocable, unlimited, and
global license for no consideration to use, reuse, delete or publish comments, in
accordance with Community Rules & Guidelines and Terms and Conditions.
Normalised Cuba-US relations could result in a hybrid economic model blending socialism and entrepreneurial spirit.
Business & Economy, Communism, Politics
Chasing dreams in an unlikely place, foreign footballers play in Somalia as country rebuilds from decades of conflict.
Sport, Africa, Somalia
Many of the 7,000 sex workers in this Kolkata red-light district say they have no other options for survival.
Asia, India, Women
Wedged between Ukraine and Romania, one of Europe's poorest nations must choose between the regional powers.
Poverty & Development, Politics, Europe
After decades of tension and hostility between the two nations, has change finally come to US-Cuba relations?
As the Baku games close, we examine the challenges facing journalists; plus, Angola, Portugal and 'reverse colonialism'.
Media, Europe, Azerbaijan
How Brazil's football legend turned every Corinthians' match into a political meeting for democracy.
Politics, Football, Latin America
The ICC chief prosecutor discusses Sudan's president escaping justice in South Africa and alleged war crimes in Gaza.
Politics, ICC, South Africa


text:
Find accommodations in Saint Albans with the hotel list provided below. Explore our guide for inexpensive and discount hotel/motel rates in or near Saint Albans, VT for your upcoming personal or group trip. We show the best Saint Albans, Vermont hotel and motel rooms. Browse the Saint Albans area hotels to find the perfect lodging! Please use the provided map of the Saint Albans hotels. Planning a group? Lock in Saint Albans Group Hotel DealsThe Saint Albans center is around the area of St. Albans Amtrak and 14 miles from Point Au Roche Beach and State Park.
Saint Albans Hotels/Accommodations
Next 20 Saint Albans Hotels > [1 - 20 of 50]
Next: See My Saint Albans Hotels with Pricing >


text:
Top Searches:
Horoscopes |
Salaries |
Washam |
July 22, 2013
Links: Australian Glass and the Pacific Northwest at Museum of Glass
Wsu Master Gardeners of Pierce County at Master Gardener of Pierce County
The Shape of Things by Neil Labute at Dukesbay Theater
All events for today »
Submit an event | All events
What if you could live forever? Transcendent Man: A Conversation about the Future, explores this idea with renowned futurist Ray Kurzweil and an all-star panel. NCM Fathom, Ptolemaic Productions and Therapy Studios are partnering to present a LIVE and all new in-depth discussion to explore Kurzweil's theories on immortality and the Singularity, a point in the near future when technology will be advancing so quickly we won't be able to keep up, unless we merge with the intelligent machines we are creating. While radical in his beliefs, Kurzweil, touted as the next Thomas Edison and has accurately predicted the onset of many world changing technological advancements including the Internet, social media and more.
Rated No Rating .
Visit the official site
Cast: Ray Kurzweil
Produced by:
Directed by:
Written by:
Running time: 2hr 0min
Opens: Aug 03, 2011 Limited


text:
1. Set up Home Sharing on all devices
If you need help setting up Home Sharing, use the articles below. Read the articles for the devices or computers you are trying to use with Home Sharing:
- Mac or Windows computers: iTunes: Setting up Home Sharing on your computer
- iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch: iOS: Setting up Home Sharing on your device
- Apple TV: Setting up Home Sharing for Apple TV (2nd generation and 3rd generation)
Note: If you can't see your photos on Apple TV (2nd generation and 3rd generation) using Home Sharing, in iTunes choose File > Home Sharing > Choose Photos to Share with Apple TV… and make sure that the checkbox next to Share Photos From is enabled.
2. Verify system requirements
To use Home Sharing, you need the latest version of iTunes open on a computer that is not in sleep mode,* and one or more of the following devices on the same home network:
*Additionally, you should install any available updates for your version of Windows or Mac OS X.
- Another computer using the latest version of iTunes.* You can use Home Sharing with up to five computers.
- An iOS device with iOS 4.3 or later
- Apple TV (2nd generation) with Apple TV software version 4.2.1 or later
- Apple TV (3rd generation)
3. Check your Apple ID
Home Sharing requires all computers, iOS devices, and Apple TVs (2nd generation and 3rd generation) to use the same Apple ID.
To verify your intended Apple ID is enabled on all of your devices:
- On Apple TV, navigate to Settings > Computers and look in the bottom-left.
- On your iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad, navigate to Settings > Music or Settings > Videos.
- On your computer, open iTunes. Open the File menu and select Home Sharing. If the incorrect Apple ID is listed in iTunes, do the following:
- Go to File > Home Sharing and choose Turn Off Home Sharing.
- Choose File > Home Sharing > Turn On Home Sharing.
- When prompted, enter the Apple ID you'd like to use.
- Click Turn On Home Sharing, then Done.
A maximum of five computers can use Home Sharing at one time. If this limit has been reached and you want to add a new Home Share, deauthorize one or more computers by choosing Deauthorize Computer from the Store menu in iTunes. For more information about authorization and deauthorization, see About iTunes Store authorization and deauthorization.
4. Check your network connection
Home Sharing requires a home network with an active Internet connection. All the devices you want to use with Home Sharing need to be connected to your home network.
In addition, verify that:
- All your devices are connected to the same router, if you have multiple routers. Using multiple routers may prevent discovery between these devices.
- Your devices are not using a Virtual Private Network (VPN), or that they are all on the same VPN. A VPN may isolate the device and cause connectivity disruptions.
- If you have a router set up with a guest network, make sure all devices are either connected to the guest network and devices on the guest network are allowed to communicate with each other, or switch all devices to the primary network on your router.
- If your computer is asleep or shutdown, or iTunes is closed, there's no access to the shared iTunes library. Wake up or start the computer and open iTunes to regain access to that library.
- Your router needs to be up-to-date. If you are using an AirPort or Time Capsule, learn about firmware updates. If you are using a router from another manufacturer, contact the manufacturer to inquire about available updates.
5. Check Firewall settings
If you have a firewall enabled in your router or computer, make sure that the firewall is not blocking communication between your computers. Home Sharing uses TCP port 3689 and UDP port 5353 to communicate with shared iTunes libraries.
In addition, Apple TV and Mac computers will use port 123 to set the time automatically. Incorrect date and time on either the computer or Apple TV can cause errors for Home Sharing and connections in general.
If you are unsure whether your router has a firewall or the required ports open, test additional devices or another network to help isolate the issue. If the devices tested work on another home network, it is your router or network configuration.
For Mac OS X, you don't have to edit the port addresses, but make sure the firewall in Apple () menu > System Preferences > Security > Firewall are not set to:
- Block all incoming connections
- Allow only essential services
If you use another security/firewall software on your computer or router, follow this article or contact the manufacturer or check the documentation on how to open TCP ports 123 and 3689 as well as UDP ports 123 and 5353.
For more information on ports used by Apple products, see Well known TCP and UDP ports used by Apple software products.
6. Quit and reopen apps and iTunes
If connectivity issues persist, quit and reopen iTunes on your computer. Then, quit and reopen the apps on your iOS device.
Note that Home Sharing cannot transfer or stream audiobook content purchased from Audible.com. See Audible.com for information on using their content with multiple devices.
7. Restart your network router
Restart your home network router using the method recommended in documentation from the manufacturer. This may include disconnecting the power cord for thirty seconds or more.
Note: During this period, Internet services such as a VoIP-based phone will not work, and any additional routers may need to be reset in sequence.
8. Cannot access my library when my computer is asleep
For Apple TV to access your library while the host computer is asleep, "Wake for network access" must be turned on.
Open System Preferences > Energy Saver and select (enable) the "Wake for network access" option.
In addition, the network that the host computer and the Apple TV (2nd or 3rd generation) is connected to must support Wake on Demand feature. This works by partnering with a service running on your AirPort Base Station or Time Capsule called Bonjour Sleep Proxy.


text:
She probably saw more carnage on the runway than Dad did in New Guinea and the Philippines.
As of Monday's count (PDF), 23 countries have poured over $181 million in aid to the Philippines as part of the relief effort.
A "virtual" 10-year-old girl from the Philippines snares 1,000 alleged pedophiles around the world—but Interpol is not pleased.
from Spanish Islas Filipinas, literally "the islands of Philip," named for Philip II, king of Spain. Related: Philippine.
Republic in the southwestern Pacific Ocean, comprising over seven thousand islands. Its capital and largest city is Manila.
Note: The Spanish held control of the islands until 1898, when they were transferred to the United States after the Spanish-American War.
Note: Named for Philip II, king of Spain during the sixteenth century.
Note: Occupied by the Japanese during World War II, the islands were liberated by Allied troops under General Douglas MacArthur.
Note: Although Philippine independence had long been an important political issue, the country did not gain full independence until 1946.
Note: The country was under the virtual dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos from 1965 until 1986, when he was forced into exile in the United States.
Note: It continues to be plagued by allegations of corruption in high places and by a Muslim insurgency.


text:
Gladrags Color Night Time Pads Description
Safe • Simple • Smart
Reusable Pads for Women
Made to Last for Years - Save up to $300 Within 5 Years
Protect Your Body Naturally with Breathable Cotton
Great for Women with Allergies or Chemical Sensitivities
Doctor Recommended
No Animal Testing
1 Night Pad
Sure. A reusable pad is a different idea...
...you might even think it's gross. We thought so too - at first. Then we tried them and we've never gone back. Join the thousands of women who know there is a better choice every month.
No plastics, perfumes, or over-packaging. Good for you, good for the environment, and you'll save money too! Enjoy the all cotton comfort of GladRags protection. It's the greener, healthier choice.
1 GladRags Night Pad = 1 holder + 2 inserts
GladRags Night Holder is approximately 14" long and 3' wide at the middle.
For one cycle we recommend:
6 to 12 day pads
1 to 3 night pads
To User GladRags Night Pad:
Place the inserts inside the holder.
Turn your GladRag over. Snap it around your underwear. The tag side goes next to your underwear and the smooth side goes next to your body.
Change the holder and inserts every 2 to 6 hours or as needed.
To Wash:
Simply soak in cold water or prewash, then machine wash and dry. More detailed use and care instructions inside.


text:
Top Searches:
Horoscopes |
Salaries |
Washam |
July 22, 2013
Links: Australian Glass and the Pacific Northwest at Museum of Glass
Wsu Master Gardeners of Pierce County at Master Gardener of Pierce County
The Shape of Things by Neil Labute at Dukesbay Theater
All events for today »
Submit an event | All events
Documentary, Program
On December 10, 2007, Led Zeppelin took the stage at London's O2 Arena to headline a tribute concert for dear friend and Atlantic Records founder Ahmet Ertegun. What followed was a two-hour-plus tour de force of the band's signature blues-infused rock 'n' roll that instantly became part of the legend of Led Zeppelin. Founding members John Paul Jones, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant were joined by Jason Bonham, the son of their late drummer John Bonham, to perform 16 songs from their celebrated catalog including landmark tracks "Whole Lotta Love," "Rock And Roll," "Kashmir," and "Stairway To Heaven." Although 20 million people applied for tickets, the band's first headline show in 27 years was seen only by the 18,000 ticket holders who were fortunate enough to have secured seats through the worldwide lottery.
Rated No Rating .
Visit the official site
Cast: Jason Bonham, Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, Robert Plant
Produced by:
Directed by:
Written by:
Running time: 2hr 4min
Opens: Oct 17, 2012 Limited


text:
1 Item(s)
This is my favorite accessory for the V3 case. I'm surprised how strong the magnet is for how small it is. I was skeptical that it would be strong enough to hold my S4 securely, but it really does a great job. I have a metal work bench with a top storage piece that is metal. I used to have to place my phone on top when listing to music. Now I just stick it right on the front of it. It also helps so when I receive a call with my filthy hands I don't have to pick up my phone up and get it dirty. I can just hit answer and then speaker and leave the phone hanging on the front of my work bench. I'm really very happy with this!
(Posted on 7/8/13)
1 Item(s)


text:
- Gisela McKay
- Toronto
- Canada
President and Co-Founder, pixcode
This conversation is closed.
How do smart people "find their level" in conversation?
I am interested in identifying how smart people (gifted/exceptional or whatever word we're using this week) people recognize each other.
I have observed that they can identify each other relatively quickly, and even broadly determine where they sit relative to each other while average or "less smart" people can usually identify that they are dealing with "smart" people but not necessarily the extent to which they are smart.
Some things I have observed that are "tells" of being "quicker":
1. A willingness to leave the conversational basics behind and explore deeper into the subject (and if the person they are conversing with does not follow, drop back to the level the other can cope with).
2. Anchoring - taking the current topic of conversation and looking for a frame of reference they are already familiar with to understand it better.
3. Quips and parallel commentary - fleeting comments that are not meant to derail the main thrust of the conversation.
Any other keys you have observed in your experience?
Aug 8 2011: It may sound funny but I have always managed to figure out other smart folks by looking into their eyes...A twinkle with a smile..kind of a hidden tagging that says 'from the same group, mate':) Has anyone else experienced this?
Aug 8 2011: Yes, the eyes have it! Good insight!Aug 9 2011: Yes, mostly that's a good sign... but remember that they can lie as well...Aug 9 2011: I like this as a concept. I, too, have definitely experienced that "Oh HO!" moment during discussions.
I still suspect it is more than that, though, because I have been able to pick up on it on IRC, which is a purely text-based chat medium, and even during seemingly ordinary conversations.
Edit: Actually now that I think about this some more, that twinkle is usually at the moment of realization - meaning something has given it away before that point, no?
Aug 9 2011: I would agree with you Gisela. I use Reuters Office Communicator (OC) & in my chats the 'twinkle' comes at a time when the other person understands (and responds) on points that one is still typing:)Aug 9 2011: A number of years (decades..) ago I picked up some extra income doing intelligence testing to screen children who were being considered for a "gifted" program. After testing dozens of children over a few years and scoring the results, I noticed a pattern and could predict with some accuracy what their score might be by looking in their eyes. There was a curiosity and sense of adventure in whatever might be interesting that fits your description of "twinkle." When we were looking for a dog for my son, we looked into the eyes of the dogs at the shelter for that "twinkle" and found one who was exceptionally intelligent.
Aug 9 2011: Totally Bob, you said it! As a famous bollywood (India) song goes, "In your eyes there is a strange beauty"...song and the english translation of lyrics can be found here if you're curious:) http://www.lyricsmasti.com/song/4949/get_lyrics_of_Ajab-Si-Ajab-Si.html
Aug 10 2011: Thanks Ratul. I could not access your link. Do you have another option?
Conrad Green
Aug 15 2011: I was one of those gifted kids. From long ago. Maybe not in your screening. But I believe I was the first generation of autistic kids. I believe my autism differs from the ones of today. It makes me very empathetic to anyone. Most ppl say you can't be empathetic if you yourself know it but I deny that claim. When you notice as a kid you react to things as a kid and your emotions are different than most kids. Anyway, not trying to throw the topic off. But maybe because of my particular autism as I would call it. I analyze and see things really really differently. My mom took me to get screen because of my gifts and because I was very empathetic>>>>> which I didn't notice until I was like 13. When ppl are sad or angry I'm unable to show real sad emotion of any kind. I will in fact laugh for no apparent reason. Anyway....I've derailed this topic.
- +1
Aug 16 2011: Conrad, It is not clear to me that you derailed the topic - this conversation potentially involves many layers and branches and I think you have raised an important point.
Your description of autism doesn't match my understanding of that diagnosis. It sounds like you are a highly sensitive person, which in my opinion is a gift that sadly tends to work against people in this culture at this time. Many people learn to cope with these experiences by trying to inhibit the experience of emotion which we do by tensing various muscle groups and diminishing our breathing. (A build up of tension commonly leads to inappropriate laughter in highly emotional situation.)
The concept of "emotional intelligence" doesn't make sense to me because the emotions are so different from cognition. "Sensitivity" and "Openness" are much clearer terms in my opinion. There is a parallel to this discussion in that people who are more sensitive emotionally often have a hard time being understood by those with normal sensitivity.
In this mass culture that puts pressure on pre-adolescents to "fit in," we desperately need who see things differently. I appreciate your input.
Conrad Green
Aug 17 2011: I've noticed that ppl such as myself. Are very quiet. Not because we don't have a lot to say. But as you said ppl such as myself can't express our self in this era. I've tried very hard to converse with many ppl and most I can tell within in the first 10 secs have no idea what I'm talking about. Not to be stereotypical. But I live in Atlanta and because the population is heavily black the only thing I can relate myself to them is Obama. That is not every black person. But I can for the most part almost always tell by the look in their eye that I would either have an engaging conversation or a slow simple one. I don't think the average person....doesn't have to be american. The average person does not comprehend the technology that is coming right now. And when I try to engage in a conversation about bionanotechnology or robotics or quantum mechanics. I find myself wanting to talk to anyone about it. Even if they don't know about it. My mind is a 24/7 scrolling encyclopedia. My release is posting tech vids of world changing technology on youtube so that I can at least feel like I'm sharing. But for the most part is agonizing not being able to express my intelligence and dumbing it down so that ppl can pace with me. Ppl really don't get me. I can disect a person's joke and see it different way than they intended. For example : They could have made a statement which could be look from an intelligent person as a technical joke. It happen today in class. Everyone looked at me funny. I thought it was hilarious. I've tried in the past to break them down to show them how it's funny. And they'll either look at me like "how was that funny" or either " they just don't get it" or "it would take so long to explain it that its not even funny to me anymore. I hate not being able to express myself and my views and or to share views with others.Aug 10 2011: To be blunt, it doesn't sound funny, it sounds elitist. We aren't a club, and I don't necessarily revel in other "intelligent" individuals. As often as not, I find them to be odious, self righteous and terribly insecure. I have had just as many compelling conversations with poeple of average intelligence as those who are gifted.
- +1
Although I understand the desire of the highly intelligent to be able to explore complex issues, and I too am compelled this way, our strengths are varied enough, that just because two people both have exceptional skills, certainly does not mean they will mesh well, or welcome each others input or company.
The concept of a "twinkle and a smile" to me seems more like an acknowledgment that both are exceedingly familiar with the interior of a high school locker than mutual membership in some special club.
However, in response to Bob, I do see how in children this could be relevant, as they tend to be far more overt and their curiosity could be visually apparent.
Debra Smith
Aug 10 2011: I like the heart expressed in this comment, Jason!Aug 11 2011: "As often as not, I find them to be odious, self righteous and terribly insecure." I would say that's just like the general population - i.e. that's just part of the human condition, isn't it? We're all varied with different experiences.
- +1
For instance, I was never stuck in a locker, I was actually the cheerleading captain, and no, I never had anyone stuck in a locker. I was mean to someone who didn't deserve it once, in grade 8, and I still feel badly about that - I fundamentally don't understand why people derive pleasure from random cruelty, it's just not in my wiring, apparently. (I do understand revenge, though. I can be 'smitey'.)
That aside, I am sitting here experiencing a fair amount of pain helping someone with something that (as far as I am concerned) should have taken 2 minutes to do, but instead I am typing away on my computer while she attempts to figure out something painfully basic.
So yes, I prefer the company of smart people, especially in the context of work.
Aug 11 2011: Gisela, in all fairness, there is a difference between a person of average intelligence, and a complete idiot who can't handle the most basic tasks. I was never stuck in a locker either, I was actually a Kickboxer. I generally tried to protect people from getting shoved in lockers. However, just because someone appears to be an idiot, does not necessarily make them so.
The random cruelty you speak of the the partitioning of alpha's and beta's. First the groups divide in their separate cliques of relative social rank, and then subdivide within themselves. It's typical behaviour as we're not nearly as far above monkeys as we'd like to believe. (Just watch the mating habits of Baboons and then go to your local disco...staggering I tell you).
I guess my point is, that idiot you are helping right now, might absolutely OWN you at something else, and then sit there thinking "gosh, why can't this moron figure this out". So she failed to pass your judgement for what should qualify as intelligent. I'd probably fail pretty badly at a lot of things too. However, there are areas where few people in this WORLD (statistically speaking) are anywhere near me.
That said, some people are just all around slow, however, that does not make them valueless, and frequently, I find "intelligent" poeple, so terribly overcomplicate issues (like how to identify eachother) that they miss what is more obvious and important. That strong communication on any level can yield incredible wisdom and insight, because we all have lives full of experience.
That's not to say you shouldn't prefer the company of "smart" people, however, I would question what you define as "smart". I think a better term might be "compatibly intelligent". I know many very smart people I competely loathe, and many average people whose company I delight in.
Alyson Irvin
Aug 11 2011: Gisela, I think if an intelligent person cannot communicate an idea or task to someone of more limited intelligence, it is more the intelligent persons problem.
- +1
Its just a puzzle. Like all puzzles. "How can I frame this to this persons thinking style and ability?" I dont get annoyed by it, I just get challenged by it. People who are less intelligent who sense frustration on the part of the more intelligent person, (or more skilled person if its not a matter of intelligence) shut down. Their anxiety level can rise and make them even more incapable of learning what you need them to know.
Be of good cheer, take it as a challenge, a puzzle to be solved and enjoy it. It will make it easier for you, and the person in question.Aug 12 2011: (Sorry this won't let me nest this response properly.)
I suspect your definition of 'average' may indeed be 'above average, but less than mine' (on a pure numeric IQ basis) - i.e. not actually average.
I've observed that there is a point at which you can tell that if the person you are dealing with isn't understanding what you are saying, you simply need to change the frame of reference or make the right analogy for all the pieces to fall into place, versus repeating yourself, slower. Or, they can articulate why what you are saying isn't connecting or at least the point of contention/break-down.
As I get older and more crotchety, I find myself actually experiencing physical pain in having to repeat myself for a third time or even just while dealing with a lack of willingness to try.
(And I am a firm believer in multiple intelligences, so I agree that people may have areas of strengths and weakness. But having spent a couple of weeks with this particular person, it is highly unlikely that there is an area that she would dominate.)Aug 12 2011: ARGH, stupid nesting limitations! This is to Alyson:
If I didn't have other more important, and frankly far more interesting things to do, I might agree with you. But I do. And, unfortunately, I am apparently completely transparent when irritated (OK, completely transparent all the time).
I'm a big proponent of streamlining things. I initially asked the question because I am really good at identifying who will and who will not 'work' in my sphere and am interested in the 'tells'. It usually happens so fast that slowing it down to analyze what the keys are seemed interesting to me.
Edit: I am fully aware that both "more important" and "more interesting" are judgments I am making based on my interests and priorities. I did, however, promise to help someone with something, erroneously thinking it would take x-amount of time, not 3x.
Aug 12 2011: It is an interesting question, because you are right, determining the intelligence of someone generally happens so quickly that its hard to pinpoint what it is you are doing. I enjoyed the exercise.
Best of luck to you and your trainee.Aug 15 2011: Hey Jason,
Apologies for the late reply, was quiet busy with work n formalizing on a new job that I would be taking up from September. I understand the sentiment expressed in your reply but please see my original comment in the context of the discussion topic. I guess you overunderstood the point I was making. My comment was not about how I would segregate people, judge them on the basis of my own concept of 'smart' and cherry-pick them n decide whether to converse with them or not. Who am I in the first place to do anything like that? In my opinion, smartness/ intelligence has nothing to do when it comes to having great conversations at a personal level coz the best personal conversations I've had have used the least amount of words..My comment is only limited to the context of work and to get things done especially in situations that require some quick thinking and fast actions. There are some people who just understand and act fast and identifying them is very important in fire-fighting situations. It's not about good/bad/'my-type' or 'not-my type', it's just about arresting the need of the hour!
Hoping we agree on some of these points now:) Beyond all this, how's life n everything else?Aug 9 2011: I have worked with disadvantaged people for the past 35 years, many of whom were highly intelligent. Upon reflection, the clearest indicators of this seemed to be a look in their eyes that Ratal described as a "twinkle" along with a sense that they were processing information rather than simply taking it in. There is a curiosity, a drive to explore and clarify whatever may be potentially interesting that usually becomes evident after a moment of reflection. Conversation becomes more an exploration than an exchange of information or desire to impress. Many of these people were poorly educated (one had even been diagnosed as severely mentally retarded), so there language seemed less of an indicator than a sense that they were looking beneath the surface and searching for connections that were not immediately obvious.
That said, I agree with Thomas that kindness trumps intelligence. I would much rather have a conversations with a kind person who was less intelligent than a highly intelligent person who is unkind.
Alyson Irvin
Aug 11 2011: Im not sure what you mean by "finding my level." I dont seek out more intelligent people or try to avoid less intelligent people, so I dont try to "find" anything regarding IQ. Now "EQ," thats another story. I definitively try to find people with higher EQ, regardless of their IQ. But I do agree with others that your first clue regarding intelligence is in the eyes. Intelligent people do have a "brighter" quality to their eyes, and they are generally active observers, very aware of their surroundings. They look alert, they look aware of their surrounding, and curious about whats going on.
- +5
Of course sometimes people are lost in thought, so I mean that when they are engaged with someone else you will notice those things.
In conversation, a dead give away is flexibility. More average minds have trouble speculating and tend to be more inflexible in their thinking. Curiosity is also a dead give away. More intelligent people are more keen to understand your point, even if they then disagree, than the more average mind. They ask more questions, generally. Vocabulary, the use of jargon or labels, etc., I do not find useful in determining someones actual intelligence, although, too heavy a reliance upon these things is generally a give away to me that I am dealing with a very educated average mind.
Oscar Garcia
Aug 12 2011: I agree with you Alyson, we don't go around looking for smart people nor we try to put them at some level. I interact with everyone that comes across my way from the gifted people to the non gifted. And we learn the differences in them. By the way you find smart people in places where smart people tend to go you get the point. ;)Aug 12 2011: Certainly, we all interact with whoever is in our sphere, but when we select out for long-term friendship, i.e. people we want to see again and again, there tend to be certain commonalities.
- +1
When you look around you at the people you have deliberately selected as friends, do they irritate you with pointless chatter? Yeah, I didn't think so. I have a couple of friends who, frankly, I think talk too much (for my taste) but at least the content is interesting.
I get the whole Zen "you must learn to transcend your circumstances" thing (which really conflicts with the whole "be in the moment" thing, doesn't it?), but if I have to find my "happy place" to spend time with you, it just becomes much easier not to spend time with you, doesn't it? I'm also pretty sure most people don't want to be transcended.
Renzo Bruni
Aug 12 2011: I think you perhaps misunderstand the concepts you refer to as Zen. Spontaneity (living in the Now) is freedom from the usual constraints of 'craving, aversion and confusion' all three of which the thinking mind imposes or operates from inside of. The Zen concept here is No Mind (wu hsin/mu shin) or acting out of what is needed in this situation right here and now without thinking of how someone else might act, or what if this or that, or what will happen next, or what will people think, or etc etc etc (the thinking mind). Transcendence, if I understand it well enough to speak of it, is simply finding what you need in whatever is available right now: liking what you have vs having what you like. I don't think spontaneity and 'transcendence' are in conflict - if fact they seem to be two sides of the same coin.
- +2
Aug 12 2011: "I think you perhaps misunderstand the concepts you refer to as Zen." Probably.
For me, finding what I need in moments of "too many words, not enough content" involves tuning the person out. ;-)
I'm sort of being facetious, but mostly not. There's a reason why I run my own business.
Debra Smith
Aug 6 2011: It is always a challenge for individuals to find like minded people but I think that the Internet makes it far easier. I am happier since I discovered TED and the wonderful conversationalists here. Many people in my day to day life have no interest in the things that I find fascinating. It is a real relief to be able to discuss them here. In the conversations, people tend to engage where they find something of interest and I have begun to notice that friendships build with time. Conversation styles may vary too but like finds like- not necessarily in perspective but often in conversational style.
- +5
Helen Hupe
Aug 6 2011: The same for me, Debra. In my day to day life I am really an odd ball. I have to look outside to find people with like interests. TED is a wonderful place to be except that philosophizing is something I love and that seems to be on the bottom of the totem pole if existent at all. Good to see you again.
- +2
Aug 8 2011: Big hug to you Helen! I am glad we are all able to exercise our true selves here.
Jimmy Strobl
Aug 9 2011: I too am much happier since I've found TED, for all the reasons you've stated Debra! I'm not too sure about the conversation style though... My own seems to vary very much...
- +1
I'm in a bit of a hurry but I just felt the need to comment so that I find my way back here!Aug 9 2011: This thread has reminded me that I should have mentioned something about context in my initial post. For one thing, I posted my question here (TED) rather than, say, Facebook because there seemed a higher odds of getting better answers from this self-selecting pool. (To be fair, I probably could have posted it in a couple of select groups on Facebook as well, it's not like I am saying smart people don't have fb accounts.)
It's one thing to walk into a trip9 meeting and know people have been pre-selected, but I am looking for those keys that give intelligence away when you strike up a conversation in a grocery store or any other environment that isn't necessarily selected out.
Seth Powell
Aug 9 2011: Gisela, you are onto something.
- +1
Why not post the question onto your FB account, too? This would lead to a greater sample size and more feedback, as well as presenting the opportunity to compare the two groups' conception of 'intelligence' if they differ. This would lead to another wrinkle to your question - Not only would we be able to analyze how intelligent people find their level (we seem to have reached a consensus on this thread so far that body language is indicative of intelligence), but also how intelligent people with different conceptions of intelligence might relate to one another.
Actually, posting several different questions on both TED and FB could lead to some really interesting data - for both us in the community, as well as TED and FB as organizations.
IMO, I often equate the concept of 'the Artist' to one of high intelligence. Not that every 'artist' is a genius, but that there is an artistic aspect to every genius. Curiosity, the need for understanding and expression, the originality and fresh insights, discipline - all abound in both a true Artist and one of high intelligence. I guess that would be list of how to identify an intelligent person, then:
1. Curiosity 2. a need for understanding 3. a need for expression 4. originality 5. discipline
(Not listed in order of importance.) And the techniques you identified - conceptual analysis, anchoring, witty quips - are typically the instruments used to demonstrate the traits I have listed.
Great question, great thread.
Tiffany Ard
Aug 14 2011: My husband says that you can measure someone's intelligence based on the lies they tell. He believes that a person will only tell a lie sophisticated enough that *they themselves would believe it.* If a lie is so ridiculous that only a person with no logic skills would believe it, then you can assume that the liar has no logic skills because he would find that lie believable. If a person tells lies that are complex in a very believable way, then you know that this person knows how reason works, and also that person understands a lot about what the listener might be thinking.
- +4
This approach has a bonus: If you meet someone whose lies convince you, you won't even realize they were lying. So you get to go through life thinking that you never meet anyone smarter than yourself. :-PAug 10 2011: They let their words flow and have a great deal of confidence in improvising and facing failure.
Aug 13 2011: I really like the last part of this - the confidence in facing failure.
I have observed an ability to not allow themselves to be defined by a failure and no need to hide what didn't work for them in a specific situation. It may be because they've learned early that certain situations require brute force, while others can be finessed, and others solutions are a combination of the two.
But "does this person speak freely of things that have failed" is probably a good clue.
Aug 13 2011: Yes a person that is constantly learning, especially from failure,s is a good indicator. This is not to be confused with dwelling on failures, being stuck and disheartened. It is a confidence in speaking of them as a great turning point or lesson.
Leila Oicles
Aug 10 2011: One of my favorite movies of all time is Being There staring Peter Sellers, and the interesting philosophical concept here is that intelligence or brilliance or any aspect of another's character is really a reflection of the other person, for it is through your own perspective and eyes you, well, percieve and judge anything, not just people. One character saw him as a genius, while another saw him as sketchy or has something to hide (interstingly enough that character was a politician!), another saw tenderness of the human spirit and perhaps a savior. This is not a new concept in the least, but I absolutely loved how this concept was portrayed in the movie. The joke, was that this man had a low IQ, quite simple mided, truthful and pure, but was hidden away and brought up as a gardner in a rich mans home. Television was his only connection to the outside world. No one knew his story, apart from a maid who helped bring him up, and the audience.
- +4
I feel the issue here is not about finding someone who lets say matches your intellligence, but in finding a common connection. The issue of levels, or dropping back to a level another can cope with etc, well that is a percetion thing too wouldn't you say? How do you know another wasn't dropping back something for you because you dont seem to "get it" so to speak. Two intelligent people where one has deeper knowledge of mathematics, and the other a deeper knowledge of law and ethics may not have a very deep conversation on either subject for they fail to connect, but that doesn't mean neither is any less intelligent than the other.
I feel it is a matter of perception and connection.
Aug 14 2011: This question is a sign of foolishness in my opinion.
- +3
Aug 14 2011: And you are entitled to it!
(Of course, I wouldn't consider immediately dismissing things out of hand without contemplating them to be a particularly positive sign. But that's just my opinion.)
Astra Singh
Aug 14 2011: Dear Eduard,
- +1
The foundation of education: No question is foolish! It all depends on how you wish to address it.
Kind regards,
Aug 15 2011: I disagree Astra. A foolish question is one that is asked without attempting to solve it yourself first. They tend to be the result of laziness.
Thomas Jones
Aug 15 2011: Hi Jason (and Eduard,)
- +4
I would disagree. Your reply, Jason, assumes there is only one reason to ask a question (to solve it.)
There are many reasons to ask questions: social bonding, curiosity, clarification, "testing the waters" to see what others think; checking for other, unthought of perspectives; misunderstanding, teaching, and so on.
And, in my opinion, there are no "foolish questions." There are, however, foolish answers.
Aug 16 2011: Just that I said:" this question is a sign of foolishness '' for obvious reasons I think, not that this is a foolish question . I don't know and I don't care if there are foolish questions or not.Aug 16 2011: Thomas, Atstra wrote "The foundation of education...". Therefore the questions in that context would be ones in which we are seeknig answers. Therefore my assertion stands.
- +1
Obviously in a situation where there in attempt to solve a problem, this would be untrue, but frankly, I think it's pretty obvious that's outside of the scope of mmy comment. So I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.
Do you not feel in an educational environment, that is behooves students to try and figure things out for themselves first before asking?
Thomas Jones
Aug 16 2011: Hi Jason,
- +3
No. I think it behooves us to make education an exciting and enthralling undertaking. We do not do this if we make the student feel foolish (for any reason.)
[In general, we do not make education compelling for any number of other reasons. But that is a topic for another conversation.]
I have responded to questions I thought were foolish only to find the questioner had a unique, and quite intelligent, perspective that was outside of my frame of reference.
As an aside, I do not think the object of education should be to find answers. At least not in the conventional sense of the term.
Western education is primarily based on the principle of "Right/Wrong." There are questions and they have a right answer - one right answer; and they have many wrong answers.
This practice teaches us to learn and remember information (at least until we take a test;) it does not teach us to think.
I think asking questions, even foolish ones - and encouraging such inquiries - does more to promote and teach active and creative thinking than does our current (Western and Chinese) system of education.
Astra Singh
Aug 17 2011: Dear Jason,
- +2
Thomas has replied so much more eloquently to your remark than I could, so I will just take shelter under that umbrella with a 'thumbs up' :)I enjoy the discussion and your points of view, thank you both for that.
In an attempt to spiral this conversation back to the original conversation topic by Gisela one remark to: 'Do you not feel in an educational environment, that is behooves students to try and figure things out for themselves first before asking?' In my opinion it depends on the circumstances. If you take 'an educational environment' to mean a school or similar institution, then 'yes' because there students are trained to function that way.
However, to me anywhere can be an educational environment. Some people grow up with a 'Why?' period in their youth. Some are silent and observe more. We learn differently and we express ourselves differently. And of course it isn't a black and white vision and certainly not a case of 'always' or 'never'.
To me a smart person does ask questions, when something is unclear to him/her (as you are doing on this TED forum) and it would be ideal if the person addressed receives that question with enough love and wisdom to provide a respectful answer.
With respect,
Tiffany Ard
Aug 14 2011: When I meet someone, I gauge our relative IQs based on:
- +3
Does this person contribute spontaneous insight and original ideas to the conversation?
Are their jokes sophisticated, original and surprising? (or literal and unoriginal?)
Is this person curious about the world?
Is this person open to new ideas?
How does this person act when he doesn't know something or turns out to be wrong?
Can this person deal with grey areas?
Does this person follow side trails in the conversation?
Does the person acknowledge nuances?
Am I hearing a lot of bad logic? Does the person defend failed logic?
Has this person tried to convince me to attend their church and/or try homeopathy?Aug 15 2011: Body language. Smart often shows itself way before you hear it. It cannot be described. Not by me, anyway.
We often get the values and abilities wrong, but not the intelligence.Aug 12 2011: Among the people I assume to be very smart I have noted that they are often looking very curious and empathic to others, at least if they are kind people. It seems to me that they are willing to trust anybody unless the others are proven unworthy. Also I have noted (like someone has said before) that they are more interested in exploring a thing while discussing it instead of simply exchanging opinions about it. So I think they recognize each other simply by recognizing the open-minded and naive approach in the other.Aug 12 2011: I think the "twinkle" that many people describe on here is much more specific than just "I'm a smart person too" for instance I consider myself to be above average intelligence, but my favorite topics are biology and physics. So if a mathematician were to come up and start talking about proofs of different equations I doubt I would have much of a "twinkle" at all. Rather than "I'm a smart person too" I believe it's more of a "I'm just as interested in this topic as you are".
The actual intelligence measurement seems to be an unconscious dance we do with each other, each taking a turn ramping up the conversation until the highest level both parties are comfortable with is reached. Now I don't have any qualms whatsoever about talking with people with less "smarts" in my field. In fact they sometimes have insights that I completely overlooked, just as a jeep can go places a Ferrari wouldn't dare tread. But sometimes it's nice speeding down the road with another Ferrari and giving your engine a good workout.Aug 9 2011: I admit my observations are not absolutes by any means. In my experiences I have rather generally found that with higher intelligence comes greater language skills. I am not only speaking of English speakers, but also speakers of Spanish and Italian that I have met.
I have always been amazed by the power we have over language (and in comparison, the power it has over us). As you said it is not impressive if one can ONLY utilize language in one single way, but it becomes impressive when one can manipulate the language to suit the needs at hand. In essence, this was my original premise: exceptional people can manipulate conversation to suit their needs, whereas oftentimes people of lesser intelligence or average intelligence are often fine with never changing the language at hand. I agree that the exceptional person is one who can converse within the language of science, art, literature, etc. and consciously switch to colloquial language as the situation demands.
That being said, having thought more on the topic since my first post, I somewhat agree with Thomas, that intelligence is not necessarily needed as much as a certain sensitivity, insomuch as I believe that we evolve a certain ability to read others, subconsciously, that guides our conversation. We do this same thing everyday, in that we know when to censor our tone, word choice, even sentence structure, depending on who we are talking to. Typically when confronting authority we choose somewhat submissive language with shorter sentences. When confronting those with strict convictions, be it religious or philosophical, we tend to subconsciously alter our language to find a way that is conducive to furthering the conversation. In order to find the level of another person we must use this same type of subconscious "profiling".
Again, I'm only a college undergrad. I'm no expert by any means.Aug 9 2011: I would never forfeit the opportunity for a "teachable moment". Being someone of higher intelligence is a gift not just to be shared among those who have been identified as such. What I find truly captivating is mastery that allows all parties to be educated through the dialogue. Now that's not to say that you need to go around preaching to people or making people feel belittled, however, it is always empowering to make all parties as enlightened as you and feel as though they could not have had a better day without the clarity you provided through your conversation. I guess the other thing is that being that we are all in dynamic environments and have been brought together, no matter what level of intelligence...seek to find the genius in someone else in every interaction you have. I'm sure that even someone you would never expect to engage in conversations can sometimes leave you astonished if you strike the right cord. Just my thoughts.Aug 9 2011: I agree with Thomas Jones in that those three things are tell-tale signs of a person of higher intellectual capacity; however, one cannot strictly define how intelligent people converse versus people of lower intelligence. If we are talking about solely about how people find people of like intellectual standing in CONVERSATION, then I believe it has much to do with the higher language and communicative skills of more intelligent individuals. There is no "spidey-sense" (excuse my Spiderman reference) that tells exceptional individuals when they are around other exceptional individuals, but I believe that people with higher intelligence recognize traits in others that allow them to distinguish between the exceptional and the less than exceptional.
I have found that people of higher intelligence oftentimes employ much more complicated sentence structure, subordinating many different ideas into flowing dialogues. As well, the word choice that these people employ (obviously, as a result of their higher intelligence level) tends to be more sophisticated. Not only do these people possess linguistic skills that surpass that of the less-exceptional individuals, but they also tend to communicate more effectively with their body language. The movement of their hands and facial expression, as well as the (usually) relaxed posture of their body during conversation tends to show someone who is of higher intelligence--though this is not always true, since there are the extremely-gifted individuals who are very poor conversationalists.
In comparison, the speech of the less-exceptional tends to be choppy, with less varied diction and generally more colloquial terms. The body language can seem more tense and uncomfortable.
Honestly, I seem to pick up more on the way someone uses their language to convey their thoughts, but that's just me. I am a lover of languages and grammar, so I may have a biased response.
Thomas Jones
Aug 9 2011: Hi Jordan,
- +7
It's great you agree with the three points in my reply, however, they aren't mine. I copied them from the text in Gisela McKay's original post.
My point is we should "find the level" of the person we are talking with. I am not convinced this takes what we conventionally call intelligence so much as it requires sensitivity. Probably what Gardner would refer to as Interpersonal Intelligence.
In most cases, I believe kindness trumps intelligence.Aug 9 2011: Hmm. I would have said that language is often more indicative of education than intelligence - and while there is often a correlation between the two, there are many very bright people who leave the education system behind, and plodders who are only moderately intelligent but work well within the academic system.
I have found that some of the brightest people I have met display a playfulness with concepts and mental agility even when speaking in completely plain English, incorporating slang, and not resorting to langue soutenue formality at all. Moreover, some others in that category are the most socially awkward people I've met - at least until they reach a certain level of comfort with the people they are conversing with (or "with whom they are conversing" for those who prefer grammatical correctness to flow.)
It's all a matter of context. I would say someone who can ONLY formulate sentences with 19th century sentence structure is much less intelligent than one who can shift from the specific language of their science one minute to the language of the street the next.
Aug 10 2011: Hi Gisela,For what it's worth, I was identified as gifted, and very much resemble your above description. I grew weary of academics. I used to speak in very formal terms (and occasionally still drop a multisyllabic nugget that raises eyebrows) but have incorporated a great deal of slang and informal speech into my vocabulary.
In response to your question, there are so many forms of intelligence, I'm not sure if there is a common theme.
Perhaps cars would be a good analogy. I'm sort of a Jeep. I'm not the swiftest thing, and I can be unwieldly, but I go places others can have a very tough time following.
A good friend of mine is a Ferrari. He has trouble following me down some paths but damnit when that road smooths out, he's leaving me in his dust and impatiently waiting at the destination.
Another friend of mine is a minivan. Not fast, doesn't offroad, but the sheer volume you can fit in there is astounding.
So I think the moral is, people identify other intelligent people by recognizing their strengths, because generally, they will display some type of strength in conversation, and it will be reasonably obvious.
Leila Oicles
Aug 10 2011: I love your car analogy! I may not be the most well read person in the world, but I am one of those that get the gist of things so to speak without wanting or needing to get in too deep. I prefer to take things that can be seemingly hard to understand or deeply profound and find a common language that most could relate to or understand. I suppose that is why I find Dr Suess to be a pretty brilliant man! I am not good with cars though, i wonder what mine would be? Hmmmmm...
- +2
Mayur Patel
Aug 9 2011: Hello Jordan, I was also under the similar kind of impression that smart people tend to use Sophisticated language. However, during my recent training at IIM, Bangalore, I could gauge that the more an intelligent a person is, the better his focus on delivery in communication. He /she believes that it is his responsibility to communicate his ideas and do not assume that others will appreciate his jargons. I have also observed many learned individuals to be extremely simple in their communication. They cut "English" (read "complicated vocabulary") out of the conversation and discuss the basics.
- +5
Only and only when an individual is unsure of his concepts or wants to show is knowledge prowess, would he take support of complicated terminology.
Aug 12 2011: I completely agree with you Mayur, although as others have said before communicative skills can be entirely separate from the many kinds of intelligence.
However i respect people far more when they are able to communicate a concept from their field to almost anyone... I think, those who have the ability to clarify something effectively and minimally in simple terms, are more focused on the purpose of their communication... which is to attempt to successfully convey understanding and keep the listener interested. And i also think people with this skill are more likely to have a deep understanding of their topic. It's as if their understanding is stored entirely separate from language, so rather than regurgitating some definition - they form their own definition appropriate to the immediate audience, and possibly even catered to the discussion at hand.
These people are far more useful in an educative way. It is a skill in itself, one which i greatly admire.
On a note of language; generally I think it's ok to use lesser known esoteric words... provided they actually help to simplify sentences and retain context for example, this can in some cases make tricky concepts easier to analyse. Conversely, words that only add flamboyance and colour to conversation at the expense of simplicity, do not serve any functional purpose... and as nice as they can be, i think they can sometimes hinder the listeners understanding.Aug 12 2011: You said that well, and I basically agree. I can't disagree that educated speakers are more able to judge and adjust to varying registers, but I think it is really and specifically 'training to speak in different registers' that prepares one to speak successfully in different registers. Politicians are good at this generally; medieval Latin teaching university dons - not so much. If IIM means India Institute of Management, I suspect there is superb training in speaking at the appropriate register.Aug 12 2011: For me, when I meet or observe total strangers...I can tell if they can offer me intelligent conversations by their body frame (language), they way they carry themselves when they walk into a room, most of them are never hurried or threatened (always confident), and have a pleasant facial expression...and" intelligence" or "smart" is knowing anything that has been scientifically proven.....you can't argue with science, right?
Aug 12 2011: I would say that you find that a person matches your level when the amount of intellectual pleasure mutually exchanged with this person is high (hence you find that talking to this person is rewarding).
- +1
Now going a bit further I would say that a rewarding experience may be achieved:
- when their levels of education + experience are similar
- when their interest + knowledge in a particular subject matter is high
I would also say that mutual affection and level of honesty are included in the equation, but I don't know.Aug 12 2011: I think that all people (at least can, but most often do) find "their level" or group they (want to) belong to.
The idea of 'like attracts like' and the urge to find comparable peers is a strong human motivator.
Smart people seek smart people
Rich people seek rich people
same goes for beauty, art, sports, interests, status,...
How do we recognize people who are like us? Probably our stereotyping skills are a first good thing to look at as an explanation... mutual acceptance during/after meeting some-one would be a logical next step.
But maybe we can put it to the test?
- try and bring a group of people together
- do a matching of their profiles to predict in what cluster of people they would end up.
- if only the intelligent end up clustered together, and no other personality traits are explanatory for forming of groups, you have strong support of your theory. If intelligence is a worse predictor than other traits, one needs to assume the more general hypothesis of 'like seeks like'.
Aug 12 2011: Nice experimental design. Would love to see the outcomes.
:)Aug 11 2011: Gisela, thank for posting this stimulating topic
As has been said, "Smart" comes in many varieties. This needs to be stressed. If the definition of "smart" is to be: "someone selected by a committee to attend a certain function or institution" then we must be clear that this is exactly what we mean. There is nothing wrong with this definition. Perhaps we can add to it additional points like "well-educated," "history of accomplishment," etc.
But if this is what you are looking for when you seek out other "smart" people, you should be aware that professional con-men often seek out self-designated "smart" people when looking for a target. This is because people who know they are "smart" in one area (like business operations or particle physics) are convinced that they must therefore be smart in other areas. This false confidence makes them easy prey to "confidence" men, who simply ply their pride and take their money. As is said, pride goes before a fall.
Also, on a more personal note, perhaps the most impressive individual I have ever met would not fit into any category of "smart" people. We became friends when I had a summer job at a fast food restaurant. without any formal education or access to philosophy or history this friend would say the most profound and beautiful things. He was small and African-Anerican, yet had an enormous caucasian wife who he loved. both their family were against it. He said, "I just don't understand why they care what color her skin is." After a theft at work he said, "Why would you steal from someone else? You'd hate it if they stole from you." And he meant it. And he lived accordingly. Staggering stuff.
So, Gisele, while you may find exciting people with "sparkle" in their eyes and effective co-workers with a history of accomplishment, you should also be on the lookout for good "friends". Which, I admit, is just as vague a term as "smart."
Aug 12 2011: Ah yes, there is a big difference between book smart and street smart, or being able to spot patterns and being able to read people. Thank you for your reply.
As for friends, mine tend to be culturally varied, but philosophically similar - you can select your friends far easier than you can limit the people you interact with on a day-to-day basis. The philosophical similarity is more stylistic than say creating an echo chamber (because where would be the fun in that?), but if you are going to make an argument I disagree with, you'd better have some damned good reasons because I'm not all that good about biting my tongue for more than a few minutes.
As my best friends will tell you, if I am this crotchety now, I am going to be one hell of a scary old lady. ;-)
quinn Nguyen
Aug 11 2011: I think you hit the mark with number one, a willingness to leave conversational basics. The people I find most intellectually fun to talk to are the ones who are most willing leave convention behind. For me, these people are usually philosophy students or graduate students who spend their days thinking about theory. Or people who love talking about Harry Potter and other grand fiction. If they don't feel discomfort at leaving reality, I consider that a mark of intellect. Because for me, intellect has to do with willingness to be reflective on things you are not comfortable about.
- +1
Fritzie -
Aug 9 2011: I would look for open-mindedness and a flexibility in connecting ideas fruitfully that are not obviously connected. The ability to -and interest in- making connections between ideas would to me suggest an intelligent person likely to arrive at interesting insights.
- +1
Seth Powell
Aug 9 2011: I think one's expectations of a person play a role in identifying one's intelligence. Many comments have been made about the 'twinkle in the eye' phenomenon, but from my own experience, the recognition of the twinkle comes AFTER they have demonstrated intelligence (and altered my perception of them) through one of the techniques Gisela mentions above. It makes me wonder if the 'twinkle' is there at all, or simply serves as a symbol for my own mental construct of an intelligent person which gets overlaid on many intelligent people I meet. The concept of an objectively perceived 'twinkle in the eye' of intelligent people is a bit mystical for my tastes, but I cannot deny the subjective reality of it.
- +1
One thing I have not seen mentioned on here but that I have also experienced is the - intelligent laugh. A bit of knowing, a drop of cruelty, a dash of incredulity, with equal parts of joy and malice. As a corollary, I believe that intelligent people also share a heightened sense of irony which serves as an alternative sense of humor that they can use in conversation to identify one another.
Thomas Jones
Aug 6 2011: How do smart people "find their level" in conversation?
- +1
I would suggest doing the following:
1. A willingness to leave the conversational basics behind and explore deeper into the subject (and if the person they are conversing with does not follow, drop back to the level the other can cope with).
2. Anchoring - taking the current topic of conversation and looking for a frame of reference they are already familiar with to understand it better.
3. Quips and parallel commentary - fleeting comments that are not meant to derail the main thrust of the conversation.
Also, I would suggest you find "their" level. And have fun.Aug 14 2011: Dear Gisela,
Let me firstly say that I enjoy your views and always read your comments when I come across them.
Much has already been addressed on this topic but I would like to add my two cents: With regard to the 'smart people' and that in relation to the three 'tells' you posted I take 'smart people' to mean gifted conversationalists and not just IQ smart. (Since those 'tells' pertain to face-to-face moments and not, for example, digital conversation like this one.) A gifted conversationalist also has high EQ and is able to engage others from all walks of life on any topic in animated conversation.
With regard to your remark: 'I have observed that they can identify each other relatively quickly…'This, I feel, may have to do with the topic of interest (e.g. a common vocation) and not necessarily with being 'smart'. I feel that everyone is smart in their own way….and some people are just good people-persons.
People usually sort out circumstances, people, topics etc. that they feel comfortable with and/or motivated by. For example: I was exhilarated in finding the TED forum because it offers so many great discussions…that I don't easily and readily encounter elsewhere. However, I haven't been able to get some of my 'smart' friends to join yet. But that may be another topic :)
Do you also have 'smart-people tells' when it comes to digital conversation?
Kind regards,
Aug 15 2011: Thank you for the kind words.
I think it was identified elsewhere in the thread that there are people who seem to be able to pick up on conclusions or next steps even before you finish outlining the premises - and this can take place both online and in person. Sentences (usually in person) such as "Ahh, I see where you are going with that." are signs that someone has taken the threads you are weaving, pulled them together with information (experience, past conversation) they already have stored in their minds and put the pieces together.
It could be argued that that is area of expertise specific, but more than that, I have experienced it as simple induction or deduction (reasoning) even where they do not necessarily have great depth of experience in that field.
I don't know that I would limit it to people who are gifted conversationalists - while that certainly may be one of the "multiple intelligences".


text:
Forgot password?
Please enter your email address and click on the 'reset password' button. You will receive an email shortly with a link that allows you to create a new password. If you do not receive this email within a few minutes, please check your spam folder.
Don't have a password? Register
If you already have an account or would like to create an account, please Sign in or Register.
If you would just like to sign up to a newsletter without creating an account, enter your email address below and click on subscribe.
Your Email
Please select at least one (1) newsletter to subscribe to!


text:
Skip to Content
In Shadows at Dawn, historian Karl Jacoby uses a single moment of bloodshed to examine the persistence of violence in the U.S./Mexico borderlands.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Guernica Means Business
April 27, 2015
Guernica's 2015 special issues
March 20, 2015
The magazine is now accepting submissions for this year's themed issues.
Shannon Reed: The Compliment Game
July 1, 2015
Sticks and stones and Beginning Playwriting.
Julia Ingalls: Crush + Vision
July 1, 2015
Revealing the unexpected, rejuvenating powers of a crush.
Roslyn Bernstein: Into the Closet
June 30, 2015
In the wake of the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision, a traveling exhibit on the treatment of homosexuals under Nazism sheds light on a darker period.


text:
Given the wide range of parameters that Chevy must meet when it designs a new car, it's no surprise that a ton of performance gets left on the table. As hot rodders, we don't care if the ride is a little jerky, if the exhaust leaves you with a permanent ringing in your ears or if you have to fill the gas tank every 120 miles. That's the price we're usually willing to pay for maximum performance.
That's not how most of the general population views their cars, though. They want them to do everything well and don't generally care if there is a way to go around a corner pulling an extra 0.05 g--just make it comfortable and reliable. Add into account that GM sells millions of cars that have to do a multitude of different things in completely different climates and geographic regions, from Death Valley in the summer to Alaska in the winter. The tune that may net you an extra tenth at the local sea-level dragstrip might very well damage your engine if you're pulling a trailer through the Rockies. It's all about compromises, and those trade-offs typically result in very good rather than ultimate grip and go.
LSR Performance of Pompano Beach, Florida (and Valdosta, Georgia), makes and sells parts that narrow this gap between stock and all-out competition for the fifth-gen Camaro. Its goal is to offer components that improve acceleration, shifting, looks and handling without turning your expensive new car into a rough-riding, bucking beast that guzzles fuel while fouling plugs.
We spent no less than a month with an LSR-prepped Camaro SS (LS3/six-speed manual) that carried virtually every bolt-on it offers. We drove it to work and play, we throttled it at the strip and tossed it around the road course at Gainesville Raceway. We loved almost everything about it, save for the finicky aftermarket clutch and having to endure hundreds of mind-numbing Bumble Bee comments because of the eyeball-popping Transformers yellow paint. Ultimately, we discovered that LSR does an excellent job of moving the needle way closer to stellar without sacrificing comfort or drivability.
To improve its handling, our test SS had LSR's lowering springs (1-inch drop front, 1.25-inch drop rear), adjustable front and rear sway bars, lowering springs, CNC-machined billet trailing arms, CNC billet toe links, chromoly subframe brake and billet floorpan brace. The car retains the factory dampers. Completing the suspension are front and rear bushing kits from Energy Suspension. The trailing arms are stronger and lighter than stock and also include firmer bushings to improve suspension response (by reducing compliance) and help drop your 60-ft times at the track.
The LSR toe links are said to be 40-percent lighter than stock and thanks to their stiffer bushings prevent excessive toe deflection upon cornering and braking. Helping to fortify the chassis further are its billet floorpan brace and chromoly subframe brace.
As far as acceleration goes, the LSR Camaro had basic but effective modifications. Its cold-air kit, Kooks axle-back exhaust system and LSR-specific computer calibration put up some impressive numbers on the Dynojet in Super Chevy's Snap On Tech Center in Tampa. How does 415 rear-wheel horsepower and 415 lb-ft torque sound (SAE corrected)? That's quite an improvement over the 365-380 owners typically see stock in these cars.
To complete the mechanical package there are those gorgeous BBS wheels (20x9.5-inch front, 20x10 rear) and fat Nitto Invo tires (275/35 and 315/35) and LSR's slotted rotor upgrade. These wheels add a lot of money to the price ($2,350 sans tires), but it's definitely money well spent. The wheel/tire combo is slightly heavier than stock, but the tires are much larger. Plus, the BBS rollers absolutely transform the look of the SS. This was our first time on track with Nitto's Invo tires and we were curious to see how they'd do when pushed to the limit and beyond.