Sounds like you’re just saying “smart” in a more complicated fashion.
-
-
not really, no, unless you're using a similarly circular definition of "smart" that turns out to encompass anything "effective". you can be very much not anything anybody actually means by "smart" and meet the criteria i describe
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
My original statement was that intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for effectiveness. In what world is this not true?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
this one, where intelligence is neither necessary nor sufficient because obediently following good procedure suffices
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
History is rich with counterexamples to this line of thought my friend.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @etscrivner @chaosprime and
To find them Google “I was just following orders”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
hunh, that goalpost was just on "effective" and now it's way the heck over there, how did that happen
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I figured you’d land here. Redefining “effective” was pretty much your only rhetorical move.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
actual lol
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Redefining effective basically mean “didn’t die immediately” or “successfully did a thing” is hardly where I’d want to end up
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
k. ask a swimming coach whether an effective swimmer is a terribly smart swimmer or a swimmer who absorbs and replicates what is institutionally known to be the best procedure for swimming
-
-
Ask a swimming coach how many effective swimmers who can take this kind of instruction have a below 70 IQ
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
your categorization of IQ 71 as "smart" shows what a generous soul you are
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.