> What makes something funny? Usually, it's by subverting someone's predictions.
And in those other cases? You have a rigorous definition of comedy?
> You have to explain a phenomenon better than the truth to convince someone of your lie.
This is so often not true I would argue it's generally false. A story is believed because a listener "wants" to believe it. Some listeners have more or less complex criteria for acceptance.
> As in, world-building? That is more of a memory problem than an intelligence problem, though you do need to be good at compressing the whole world into what is relevant to the story. People who are worse at that will have to take more notes and refer back to them more often.
People like Tolkien and Martin? Note taking as a sign of poor skill/intelligence is a wildly novel take from my point of view.
> Also, using the adjectives 'complex, multi-faceted' is lazy here. Be more introspective and write what you really want to say.
Couldn't I say the same about your use of Introspective? Surely a more detailed phrase exists to describe what you mean.
> interpersonal conflicts... Quite often not an intelligence problem.
Oh, I think this will get at the root of our misunderstandings. I believe I've seen this attitude before. Before I jump to conclusions: Why exactly do you say this skill is not intelligence-based?
> And in those other cases? You have a rigorous definition of comedy?
There's surely more to comedy than subverting expectations. Someone else who cares more about comedy in particular can figure that out for themself, but surely I gave enough of the general idea to make it clear how you could go about measuring the intelligence necessary for comedy.
> A story is believed because a listener "wants" to believe it. Some listeners have more or less complex criteria for acceptance.
Yeah, that's the sense of "better" I was going for. I could have been more clear here, so I'm glad you figured out what I meant.
> Couldn't I say the same about your use of Introspective? Surely a more detailed phrase exists to describe what you mean.
It was a not-so-kind way of saying, "don't point at vague ideas to obscure what you really mean and make it difficult for others to understand what you mean to keep your opinion unassailable."
> Why exactly do you say this skill [resolving conflicts] is not intelligence-based?
Most people have more time to think than they actually use during conflicts, so I expect most of the time conflicts come from people preferring to not think than because they lack the ability. That or a fundamental value difference (you want my food, I want my food).
> Most people have more time to think than they actually use during conflicts, so I expect most of the time conflicts come from people preferring to not think than because they lack the ability.
This seems to imply that intelligence only exists in deliberate, conscious thought. Do you think that's true?
Second, revolving conflicts is not the same thing as getting into them, so it's unclear why bring that up at all.
True. I expect most conflicts come from people preferring not to think, and I also expect most conflicts escalate from people preferring not to think. Those are separate statements, and I only said the former.
> This seems to imply that intelligence only exists in deliberate, conscious thought. Do you think that's true?
Eh, I don't think it implies that, and I also don't think that is true.
What you need for conflict resolution is usually a willingness to try to resolve the conflict. In rare situations, where communication and time is limited, you can actually run into the issue where you have to be smart enough to figure out what the other person wants (and see if you can come up with a mutually beneficial offer), but often in real life you can just spend more time thinking and ask them what they want.
And in those other cases? You have a rigorous definition of comedy?
> You have to explain a phenomenon better than the truth to convince someone of your lie.
This is so often not true I would argue it's generally false. A story is believed because a listener "wants" to believe it. Some listeners have more or less complex criteria for acceptance.
> As in, world-building? That is more of a memory problem than an intelligence problem, though you do need to be good at compressing the whole world into what is relevant to the story. People who are worse at that will have to take more notes and refer back to them more often.
People like Tolkien and Martin? Note taking as a sign of poor skill/intelligence is a wildly novel take from my point of view.
> Also, using the adjectives 'complex, multi-faceted' is lazy here. Be more introspective and write what you really want to say.
Couldn't I say the same about your use of Introspective? Surely a more detailed phrase exists to describe what you mean.
> interpersonal conflicts... Quite often not an intelligence problem.
Oh, I think this will get at the root of our misunderstandings. I believe I've seen this attitude before. Before I jump to conclusions: Why exactly do you say this skill is not intelligence-based?