Is eloquence a sign of inteligence?

[Johny2x4]

Pretty much what the title says. Is there any real connection or is just a myth?

 

[sadhatter]

Personally i don't think so. As an actor and a writer, i can say i can sound really eloquent about things, and at the same time be talking giant wobbly bullocks.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Personally i don't think so. As an actor and a writer, i can say i can sound really eloquent about things, and at the same time be talking giant wobbly bullocks.

Ditto.

 

[Johny2x4]

I ask this, because a CT I usually argue with, usually shows a great eloquence and no matter how I say, I can´t come up with posts as elaborated.

 

[sadhatter]

I ask this, because a CT I usually argue with, usually shows a great eloquence and no matter how I say, I can´t come up with posts as elaborated.

Its easy, if your goal is just to say " Look i can do it to." ( in order to shut said person up. Not taking a jab at you, as i tend to do this too.) , here is a short course.

Lets take the following sentance

" An axe is a good weapon to use in regards to killing a zombie."

Pretty good, short concise , gets all the information out there. But lets expand it just a bit. First start with some meaningless blather that is eloquently worded to pad the start. This is obviously an opinion, so lets go with that.

( To condense, rule #1 never stick to just the point.)

" It is my personal opinion, based on all available research, that an axe is a good weapon to use in regards to killing a zombie. "

Now it is getting a bit better, but what could we do to beef it up a bit? Well, we talked about research didn't we? Lets just list all kinds of types of research.

( To condense, rule #2, repeat yourself without really repeating yourself.)

"It is my personal opinion based on research conducted online, via literature, and using available similar scenarios, that an axe is a good weapon to use in regards to killing a zombie."

A little heftier, sounds a bit more poncy, so we are doing good. But Axe, it seems a little short doesn't it? Well that isn't a problem, there are many different types of axes.

( Rule #3 minutia are your friend.)

"It is my personal opinion based on research conducted online, via literature and using available similar scenarios, than any axe , from your wood cutting axes, such as felling axes, splitting axes, and adzes, to your axes designed for combat such as , shepard's axes, ono, or hurlbats are good weapons to use in regards to killing a zombie."

Now you could even pad this further by making use of the three already learned rules, ( of course i am not telling you all the tricks of the trade. I spent a good amount of money on my improv courses, lol.).

Eloquence is a skill, not a sign of skill. Your ct nemesis is doing nothing more than what i just did.

 

[Babbylonian]

I think it's a sign of intelligence, but that doesn't make it a sign of knowledge.

 

[Sledge]

A quote I've often seen attributed to Einstein is "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." I agree with that, and have far more time for people who can make their point briefly than those who witter on without saying anything. I'd say it takes more intelligence to be clear and concise than to be eloquent.

 

[sadhatter]

A quote I've often seen attributed to Einstein is "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." I agree with that, and have far more time for people who can make their point briefly than those who witter on without saying anything. I'd say it takes more intelligence to be clear and concise than to be eloquent.

i hate to seem like i am saying " actors have it down pat and your all just sheep." ( i am not.) but this topic has some overlap with a lot of my personal experience.

Sledge is spot on, one of the hardest skills to acquire is the ability to " read one's audience." especially when using any kind of improvisational acting, which is essentially what most debates are.

And reading ones audience is integral to making a point concisely. Any knob can rattle off a copy and pasted ream of information from prisonplanet, but it takes someone with intellect and insight, to listen and learn , and then make a judgement on which method would be the best to get the point across to a given audience.

 

[Johny2x4]

Its easy, if your goal is just to say " Look i can do it to." ( in order to shut said person up. Not taking a jab at you, as i tend to do this too.) , here is a short course.

Lets take the following sentance

" An axe is a good weapon to use in regards to killing a zombie."

Pretty good, short concise , gets all the information out there. But lets expand it just a bit. First start with some meaningless blather that is eloquently worded to pad the start. This is obviously an opinion, so lets go with that.

( To condense, rule #1 never stick to just the point.)

" It is my personal opinion, based on all available research, that an axe is a good weapon to use in regards to killing a zombie. "

Now it is getting a bit better, but what could we do to beef it up a bit? Well, we talked about research didn't we? Lets just list all kinds of types of research.

( To condense, rule #2, repeat yourself without really repeating yourself.)

"It is my personal opinion based on research conducted online, via literature, and using available similar scenarios, that an axe is a good weapon to use in regards to killing a zombie."

A little heftier, sounds a bit more poncy, so we are doing good. But Axe, it seems a little short doesn't it? Well that isn't a problem, there are many different types of axes.

( Rule #3 minutia are your friend.)

"It is my personal opinion based on research conducted online, via literature and using available similar scenarios, than any axe , from your wood cutting axes, such as felling axes, splitting axes, and adzes, to your axes designed for combat such as , shepard's axes, ono, or hurlbats are good weapons to use in regards to killing a zombie."

Now you could even pad this further by making use of the three already learned rules, ( of course i am not telling you all the tricks of the trade. I spent a good amount of money on my improv courses, lol.).

Eloquence is a skill, not a sign of skill. Your ct nemesis is doing nothing more than what i just did.

Interesting. So I guess being deliberately vague also helps? Like "I´m only give you food for thought, do your own research to see who´s really in control."

 

[The Norseman]

Eloquence isn't writing long-windedly. Eloquence isn't necessarily writing short, Hemingwayesque sentences either.

Eloquence is about preciseness within conciseness; a natural love of the language and a feeling for explaining ideas to differing audiences.

 

[sadhatter]

Interesting. So I guess being deliberately vague also helps? Like "I´m only give you food for thought, do your own research to see who´s really in control."

The combo of vague and specific can't be beat. You throw minutia at people about stupid **** and then you puff up the rest of what you say with filler.

Thank **** i am not a truther , or woo entrenched anymore. I used to be able to convince people of way too much crap stripped of the morals of skepticism. ( not that i actually knew i was doing anything wrong, i just thought i was a convincing bloke. It was kind of like finding out after 300 fights you were winning by kicking people in the nuts. )

 

[Ray Brady]

Yes, eloquence is definitely a sign of intelligence. However, "eloquent" is not the same as "verbose" or "bombastic".

Using ten words when one will do is not eloquence. Using a four syllable Latin derivate when an Anglo-Saxon monosyllable is available is not eloquence. Eloquence is finding the right words to express the right sentiment. That requires intelligence.

 

[sadhatter]

Yes, eloquence is definitely a sign of intelligence. However, "eloquent" is not the same as "verbose" or "bombastic".

Using ten words when one will do is not eloquence. Using a four syllable Latin derivate when an Anglo-Saxon monosyllable is available is not eloquence. Eloquence is finding the right words to express the right sentiment. That requires intelligence.

But why use the real thing when it is cheaper, easier, and safer to fake it?

**insert trollface here**

In all honesty that is the problem with debate, you can be a very intelligent eloquent individual. And i can be nothing more than a decent con man who knows what people want to hear and what will make them think i am eloquent. And if the person we are convincing doesn't know of the subject, most of the time i will win.

 

[LashL]

A quote I've often seen attributed to Einstein is "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." I agree with that, and have far more time for people who can make their point briefly than those who witter on without saying anything. I'd say it takes more intelligence to be clear and concise than to be eloquent.

Yes, indeed.

Sort of like what Blaise Pascal wrote in 1660, apologizing for the length of a letter he wrote because he didn't have time to write a shorter one.

 

[John Jones]

Tarzan not know.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Is good spelling?

 

[Distracted1]

I have seldom been taught anything by an ineloquent person.

The times that I have been, however, I was struck with the realisation that eloquence is not a prerequisite for intelligence.

 

[TX50]

Its easy, if your goal is just to say " Look i can do it to." ( in order to shut said person up. Not taking a jab at you, as i tend to do this too.) , here is a short course.

Lets take the following sentance [...blah...blah...]

That's not eloquent. That's turgid.

Eloquence (true eloquence) absolutely is a sign of intelligence.

Tarzan not know.

Him think him fool Tonto, Kimosabe!

 

[dirtywick]

It's a sign of vocabulary. Vocabulary is a sign of education.

 

[Ron Webb]

Eloquence is the effective use of words to communicate ideas. It is a skill, and skills in general usually correlate with intelligence, but one is by no means a guarantee of the other.

I think a key question is, what do you mean by "intelligence"? Words are symbols, and the ability to manipulate symbols is one kind of intelligence (the kind usually measured on IQ tests for instance); but there are other kinds as well. The definition mentions things like "capacity for learning", which implies a good memory, and "the faculty of understanding", which might include empathy or social skills.

To me, human intelligence is akin to the overall performance of a computer. The kind of raw symbolic intelligence measured in IQ tests is like the CPU speed: an important aspect, but really only one of many, including things like RAM, operating system, peripherals and bus width.