I read a lot of reviews that use the term intelligence to describe a provider. I am somewhat confused as intelligence "means the capacity to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn."
Intelligence is usually measured by some test that judges this ability. Is it possible in an encounter to understand a providers' intelligence? It is a term of art. Or do the hobbyist mean that she spoke well, seemed pleasant, and was conversant? Because unless you are asking the provider to solve a problem that measures her cognitive ability or are asking her a question to understand how she thinks this is the wrong term to use imho.
For the posters who take everything personally please don't respond as that will only prove my point.
might be a better term, since some of us do engage in some conversation and compare our interests. Then again, to become knowledgeable, one would have to display a certain degree of intelligence.
I have been fortunate to have been with two providers who are college students who can carry on a very intelligent conversation on mant subjects. Just because she is a provider, don't come to the assumption that she is not intelligent. With your type of thinking, it won't be long before dinosaurs will walk the earth again.Really, how inteligent are you?
because you are failing to, using your definition, reason the problem through to a resolution employing some abstract thought and comprehension.
Your first problem, besides the typo and grammatical error, is that you are artificially limiting the measure of intelligence to some objective test. No real test (by this, I mean one universally accepted without valid objection and rejection) exists.
If you were to really think about this, you would probably come to the conclusion (unless limited somehow) that a person's relative level of intelligence can be identified and measured by and through observation, interpersonal interaction and communication, and simply listening to the person when they speak. You would also reach the obvious conclusion that intelligence is a relative concept since the person who is measuring the level of intelligence of another is only doing so from his or her own personal intelligence and ability. (if you work through this, you will see that since we're speaking about cognitive ability here and the use of one's ability to think and reason, you can only understand that which you can understand (if you have a headache here, I understand because I read your post. It's OK, just relax))
So, if I am enjoying a session with a provider, and in her interaction and communication with me, I can determine that she not only understands what I am saying, but is making connections, reasoned conclusions, and actually responds to me with appropriate and applicable verbal and nonverbal responses, then you're Goddamned right I am going to recognize her as intelligent without having to give her an IQ test that doesn't mean squat anyhow.
If you had a hard time with this post, I guess you're dumber than those intelligent providers that have confused you.
some sociologists even believe in emotional intelligence. That concept has never been measured in my 17 years of education. Why couldn't one find a talented provider exceptional through some less traditional operationalization? Perhaps the lady was well-versed in some subject and surprised her friend? I have been party to some lovely discussions with my friends; a few have seemed surprised that I knew anything besides sucking d*ck.
This can be found right inside your link. As you can see, if you had read my first post, my contention is that there is no test that has been universally accepted without objection or rejection.
Give it up brother.
"Criticism on measurement issues
[edit] Ability based measures are measuring conformity, not ability
One criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey comes from a study by Roberts et.al. (2001) [29], which suggests that the EI, as measured by the MSCEIT, may only be measuring conformity. This argument is rooted in the MSCEIT's use of consensus-based assessment, and in the fact that scores on the MSCEIT are negatively distributed (meaning that its scores differentiate between people with low EI better than people with high EI)....
[edit] Ability based measures are measuring knowledge (not actual ability)
Further criticism has been offered by Brody (2004)[30], who claimed that unlike tests of cognitive ability, the MSCEIT "tests knowledge of emotions but not necessarily the ability to perform tasks that are related to the knowledge that is assessed". The main argument is that even though someone knows how he should behave in an emotionally laden situation, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he could actually carry out the reported behavior.
[edit] Self report measures are susceptible to faking good
More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), faking good is defined as a response pattern in which test-takers systematically represent themselves with an excessive positive bias (Paulhus, 2002). This bias has long been known to contaminate responses on personality inventories (Holtgraves, 2004; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Peebles & Moore, 1998; Nichols & Greene, 1997; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987), acting as a mediator of the relationships between self-report measures (Nichols & Greene, 1997; Ganster et al., 1983).
It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a response set, which is a situational and temporary response pattern (Pauls & Crost, 2004; Paulhus, 1991). This is contrasted with a response style, which is a more long-term trait-like quality. Considering the contexts some self-report EI inventories are used in (e.g., employment settings), the problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001).
There are a few methods to prevent socially desirable responding on behavior inventories. Some researchers believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake good before taking a personality test (e.g., McFarland, 2003). Some inventories use validity scales in order to determine the likelihood or consistency of the responses across all items."
There is an excellent book called Emotional Intelligence wtitten by the Psychologist Daniel Goldman. Traditional IQ tests have limited use. The Verbal IQ is a fairly good predictor of how well a person will do in school. There are many other factors such as motivation, social skills, commonn sense, and creativity,to name a few that are important but not measured in the best IQ test such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV).
Howard Gardner is a pioneer in the concept of mutiple intelligence. He identifies I believe seven areas if intelligence. He includes interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, and musical intelligence to name a few off the top of my head. I bet we all know people who can score high on an IQ test but do not have a lick of common sense. My major professor for example.
I will admit I did not read the beginning part of this thread after Dixie Chicken ripped him I figured there was no point. I will say many of the providers I have seen are very intelligent and have excellent social and emotional intelligence. If there was a way to compare all providers to all hobbyists on IQ, social and emotional intelligence I am not at all sure who would come out ahead
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. As I stated this wasn't meant to be a personal attack on anyone like you made it. So who is the idiot? No I will make that who is insecure?
has been around for quite some time, and his opinions are respected by just about everyone, AND nobody knows who the fuck you are, due to the alias, I'd venture to guess that you are the one who is insecure.
I hope I spelled everything right. Did I cross my i's and dot my t's? I wouldn't want to get spanked by someone who is obviously more educated than I am.
Think about it! Another intellectually flawed argument. Many moderators have addressed this concept of aliases in a very insightful manner. So unless Hungry1951 is your real name or Dixie Chicken is his stop being intellectually dishonest!
I'm not the one holding myself out as the arbiter of all that is intelligent.
If you would think geometrically rather than lineally, you would realize that the tenor, premise, and framing of your post contained a direct implication that someone couldn't describe a provider as intelligent absent conducting some quantifiable test for intelligence. Since that is such an obviously laughable premise, the only possible conclusion (particularly since you used an alias) is that you were trying to pick a board fight about the general intelligence of providers and playing on stereotypes, which just aren't true.
Don't get off on yourself by crying "I didn't mean it personally" when you clearly did. It's an insult to our intelligence.
Although an IQ test would probably spoil the mood of most encounters, I think you can get a good idea of intelligence, as well as education and knowledge, from conversation, especially if extended or after multiple topics and meetings. I would also argue that intelligence (or sometimes the opposite) can be pretty well assessed from blogs and website chats. I have occasionally sought out providers whose posts struck me as particularly intelligent and have not been disappointed.
making it hard to quantify; I also never bought into validity of Stanford-Binet IQ tests---too many structural problems ( cultural bias being one of them ). Cutting to the chase, here's a quick way I can gauge a provider's ( or anyone else's ) "intelligence"---vocabulary, comportment & the ability to carry on a "smart" conversation & have that person listen well to what I am saying & offer reasonable verbal feedback to me. I find that this is a good indicator for me.
and stereotypical in this industry due to the somewhat prevailing view that providers typically are not intelligent.
It brings to mind a rather impromptu game one of my clients and I had during a session. He mentioned prime numbers and the next thing I knew we were off to the races ...
Me: 2 Him: 3 Me: 5 Him: 7 Me: 11 Him: 13
You get the picture. As I recall we made it to 101 before going back to play time. So yes, I do believe it is possible to discern, relatively speaking, the intelligence of a provider during a session.
See in my professional or social world I would never refer to a peer as "intelligent" because I would assume that all my peers are. I believe that when someone who is intelligent uses the term "intelligent" to describe another it is because they thought that person was actually not very smart, well educated, etc.
So is this basically what a hobbyist who believes he is superior to the provider in intellect uses when he realizes that she might be his peer?
Also, your punctuation is severely flawed; to write in a more concise & literate style, I'd advise you to pick up a copy of Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style". You also seem to be suffering from delusions of adequacy;don't know what would help you there. Another thing----is your picture next to the definition of "pretentious" in the dictionary ?
Btw------was Tabu's "Sophistry" comment directed toward me--?-------The Sophists were discredited ancient Greek philosophers who engaged in deceptive & specious arguments-----I'd bet my BS in Psych. that she wasn't------
I have met many erudite providers in person & on this board ( particularly in this thread )---NONE of my previous postings ( including the barbs ), were directed towards them---merely the pompous individual who started the OP.------Paranoid Priapus.
Are you serious? Are you saying that when you have a conversation with someone who is clearly knowledgeable about the topic of discussion, you are unable or unwilling to recognize the person as being intelligent, or of posessing intelligence?
I don't know, maybe this will come as a news flash for you, but many gentlemen enjoy actually talking to their lady friends before and after coitus occurs. Perhaps in your wisdom it never occurred to you to try such an unusual activity. In the course of conversation, an odd thing sometimes occurs in which the lady demonstrates a surprising level of intelligence about whatever topic of conversation happens to come up. Strange to imagine, but it actually happens.
Now, if all you do is stick your silly stick down her throat when you walk in the door, and toss a few bucks on the dresser as you leave, perhaps it may be difficult to accurately assess the cerebral capacity of your paramour. On the other hand, you might take it as a sign of her intelligence when she won't answer your calls. I don't know, I'm just guessing here.
Honestly, I've seen some pretty pointless posts clearly designed to get a rise out of others, but this one I think just might qualify for the Drama Hall of Fame.
If I were reading such a review, as you have mentioned, I would be thinking the reviewer was attempting to inform me that the woman was a pretty smart cookie. I know, "smart cookie" is not a technical term, nor is it quantifiable. I can tell by looking in her eyes, only briefly, and introducing a little humor, if she is a smart cookie. I really don't need to know how smart and in what specific ways. So what's you point again, and why is it so important. The point is, the review is only trying to give us a description of the lady. He's trying to be helpful. If you have issue about what he means, PM him and find out. Don't come hear and insult my intelligence by pretending you are asking an honest question.
Intelligence is indeed a term of art in some fields, though the late great Stephen Jay Gould made a rather convincing case that such fields' attempts to define and quantify it have been pretty consistently disreputable in methodology and racist in purpose. But even if it were a valid term of valid art, its technical meaning would by no means be the only valid one. Lots of terms are simultaneously terms of art and terms of common speech. More broadly, most words have more than one valid meaning and sphere of usage, which is why most dictionary entries feature enumerated arrays of definitions rather than just one per word.
In the context of TER reviews, "intelligent" suggests that a provider is well-educated, cultured, and hence able to appreciate allusive witticisms and respond in kind. If her client is one who prides himself on his abilities in that vein (where perhaps he is less justifiably proud of his physique), this quality in her will much improve his experience, since he will be able to feel he has shone in her company. For such a man, this quality is among a list of desiderata that will likely include also empathic warmth, physical beauty, and sexual technique.
If so, the reverse should also hold true; the ability to determine intelligence without the aid of a test. The property of symmetry applies in this context.
Of course the real purpose of your post was simply for you to put on airs and appear superior to the low-class reviewers who, in your view, used the technical term "intelligence" improperly. If you really didn't understand how the term was being used than I can easily determine you lack of intelligence. All of this over "she is intelligent" instead of "she SEEMS intelligent".
Many things determine what intelligence really is, Theres a wise way about a person that comes with life experiences, now thats the ultimate test really... Theres one who is book smart, well educated and sometimes thats what you may call bright.
Theres those who are passionate and sensative to others and can engage in deep meaningful conversations with just about anybody. They know how to conduct a conversation, how to direct it and how to involve those around them in it as well... Yes it takes some smarts to problem solve, but not the only way to judge someones intelligence. Its all an opinion really I guess when you are reading reviews. But if the general population of her clients, who are most likely bright as well, say shes intelligent, she probably is as well as life experienced, charming and quick witted. Maybe she just well rounded and thats what you are looking for. I am just guessing.
there is one point made by the OP and with which i agree, and that is that often when one person describes another as "intelligent," what they are truly saying is that they were not expecting said person to be so...exposing their own personal prejudices or ignorance. a bit akin to saying, "she's attractive for a black woman."
some men assume that because a woman has chosen this profession, she is intellectually incapable of succeeding in any other area. so when they encounter a provider who is educated beyond high school, is knowledgeable of current world affairs, knows that "Homer" is not just some cartoon character, they are surprised and will describe her as "intelligent." as in, "hey fellas, this one has a brain! really! no foolin'!"
of course this is not always what is meant when someone describes another this way and i'm certain that not every reviewer who has described a provider as intelligent is suffering from some woeful complex of superiority and ignorance, but sometimes this is indeed the case. there have been some of my clients who have complimented or praised me for my intellect, and it is very clear that they have intended it in the insulting, negative (tho unconsciously so) manner i've described here.
"I read a lot of reviews that use the term intelligence to describe a provider. I am somewhat confused as intelligence "means the capacity to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.""
ROFLMAO... I hope you weren't asking a serious question so I will give you a serious answer. Take me for example a graduate of eighth grade. Am I a elitist? "NO"..... Am I uppity? "No"..... Do I think I can spell better than everyone else? "No" .....Do I like to look up words in the Thesauras to try and impress others ?" No"......Am I a rocket scientist?...... "No" I don't think I have ever mentioned intelligence in my reviews but just like beauty, intelligence is in the mind of the beholder.. As long as she is not dumber than me everything is all good as long as its good. In other words if the performance is good and she doesn't giggle at EVERYTHING I say I know I just left a intelligent provider.
Ability to judge intelligence depends on how the gentlemen treats the appointment. The depth and complexity of the experience is limited only by the interest a gentlemen shares in exploring beyond the flesh.
If he's eager for conversation, and himself delves into thoughtful topics, beyond a shadow of a doubt he'll see if she's intelligent. I've attended many high culture events, and watched political and scientific discussions on long extended dates, where we later continue the discussion between the two of us.
A lively debate and conversation can help glean that sort of information: er ability to form an opinion, what information she bases her ideas on, her ability to defend her thoughts rationally.
Reasoning, abstract thinking, comprehension, vocabulary, and ability to learn all play a part.
Both in person and via email I've discussed the nature of democracy, controversial subjects such as abortion and pharmaceutical ethics, one gentleman taught me a great deal about Hegel. We've discusses the history of religions and how it applies in the modern day, we've shared poetry and had long reflective discussions on the matter. With long term clients we've read some of the same books and had ongoing talks about the subject matter.
I have to agree with Dixie_Chicken, Emotional Intelligence goes a long way as to giving the impression of a lady with a well developed mind.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
