|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The thing about language is that anyone can master it to the extent they want to master it. I'm known in my field as a good writer, but if people realized that I almost daily consult a dictionary or thesaurus, or fret over every word when I'm writing something I want to be taken seriously they might reconsider their opinion and just think I'm OCD instead.
There's such a clear distinction between language skills which are rewarded by hard work and maths skills which are mainly innate (in my experience) that thinking of IQ as a measure of mental ability in general is silly. Math you're either good at or not, language is a battle.
How does that change when it's on the fly, in the moment?
For example, Sam Harris. He might be the most articulate off the cuff speaker I know of. I'm a great speaker, but that dude is on another level. I may be a better conversationalist than him though, so there is that. Which makes me wonder how those skills differ, articulate speaking and conversation. Maybe like the difference between an interviewer and interviewee. The interviewee has to be good at articulating a thought in the most interesting way, but the interviewer as to be good at playing off the thought in the most interesting way.
Harris' mechanical, active speech is hilarious. It's what I do. I'm trying to go more visual (like what Trump does), but it's tough. I think in terms of movement more than picture, but picture is more effective at communicating to somebody that isn't already your choir.
|
Reply With Quote