Reply #36: I disagree with the basis of the question...

[Chan790]

it's based on an assumption that all certain knowledge can be quantified and assigned value. That means somebody has to be the impartial and objective arbiter of the value of knowledge. (A premise I can objectively reject even based on the limited knowledge of being aware of what I do not know. Omniscience is necessary to assign value to knowledge.) Otherwise we have to assume that all knowledge equal in value and scope. In that case who am I to say the quantity (because quality is unknowable) of my knowledge is greater than that of others?

An example...I have an IQ (tested) of 174. I'm certain that my coworker Kay would score less highly...but is that a reflection of intelligence or of the questions skewing in my favor? I might read more books and write publishable poetry and have a college degree and be a champion debater but she's a trained diesel mechanic and paramedic; it seems to me that my ability to put words together is by-and-large a lot less useful...even if many people put a higher value upon it. The valuation of knowledge is foolish...literally the undertaking of fools. That leaves only one metric: Do I know more than she does, sum in toto? That's an immodest and unprovable claim.

I voted that I'm of average intelligence knowing that the vast majority of people would concede that I'm more intelligent than they are. Not because they're wrong but because they're not objective and thus can't be right.

All philosophy after Socrates is bullshit, all intellectualism is classism and sophistry. Debating one's intelligence is the ultimate in narcissistic navel-gazing.