Good question. Quick answer: Sort of, perhaps, maybe. We all make these assessments. Usually we have to get to know somebody well to judge whether our assessments were right or not.

A person can make rough estimates about someone's intelligence, but which way would be best would depends on context, content, and you.

First, intelligence isn't one single aspect of thinking. There are verbal intelligence, spatial relationships/mechanical intelligence, social intelligence, visual intelligence, and so on. Some people can't look at a realistic painting and see anything except a literal picture. Maybe they lack visual intelligence, or maybe it's a bad painting.

Second, the context is critical. What time/place/activity are you interacting in? Bus stop? Bar? Classroom? Coffee shop? Very late at night, or mid morning? What are you talking about? The weather? Existentialism? An art show? a mechanical problem with your car? A ball game?

Third is you. How smart are you? How good do you think you are at assessing others, compared to how good you actually are at assessing other people?

So, you're talking with a new acquaintance in a coffee shop about a science fiction book you are reading, in which worm holes enable travelers to cross large distances in the galaxy very quickly. Your new friend is a musician and doesn't like science fiction. You think worm holes are a reality, he thinks it's kind of stupid. Which viewpoint indicates intelligence? (I don't know.)

It turns out you both play chess, a chess board is on hand, and he beats you in short order. Does that mean he is more intelligent than you? (I don't know.}

The skill needed here for you to evaluate his intelligence is "How well does he explain his objection to worm holes. Is it a knee-jerk reaction to science fiction, or does he have reasons for his opinion? Then too, how well do you explain your belief that worm holes are real? What about chess? How much chess have both of you played? If you are just learning, and he has played all his life, he would of course check mate you in short order, whether either of you were very smart or not.

If you like somebody a lot, you'll probably up-rate their intelligence and other features. If you dislike somebody, you'll probably down-rate them.

That's why intelligence testing is best done under controlled circumstances.

I can tell you from my experience. A lot of people say I'm really smart. Yet when I take an online IQ test usually score average. Either people mistakenly think I'm intelligent or online IQ tests are unreliable, or both. I've had a rabbi call me a dumbbell. I had a friend say "your not smart". Another friend told me "you strike me as a really dumb person", "you say stupid things". On the other hand, I had professors call me really bright on many occasions. I have a 3.9 GPA -- at a community college. If there is way to know whether someone is intelligent by just knowing them at least half the people who knew me got it wrong.

I think there are different aspects to intelligence, and I think intelligence also has a strong psychological aspect. IQ tests, for instance, tend to measure more of a reasoning ability. There's not any questions, for instance, on how to act morally in certain situations, there are no questions that involve creativity or intuition (mental powers essential to making any kind of art, for instance). How would you make a test that measured creativity, anyway? The problem with trying to measure intelligence at all is that some functions of the human mind don't avail themselves to quantitative measurement. Really, the potential for human intelligence is far-ranging; consider savants, for instance. There's also an aspect of intelligence called common sense which many of the "masses" possess, and many of the intellectual class do not.

The other aspect I mentioned is the psychological aspect. Our own perception of our own intelligence tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy; if I consider myself bad with logic (which I do), I'll probably continue to not really try to learn it (formal logic anyway), unless I really push myself outside of the bounds of that psychological belief about myself. Of course, that belief is based on experience. But, we create a picture in our minds of our own intelligence, and we tend not to try to alter that picture. In-grained beliefs about ourselves are hard to change. The other day I was covering a shift at my old job, and the new kid, a post-grad, hasn't learned how to close out the shop after working there for a year. I walked him through the process, and I could tell he was intimidated that I knew how after not having worked there for over a year, and I could tell that anytime I explained an aspect of the process, he ingested that not as useful info for future shifts, but as yet another voice telling him "you're dumb, you can't learn this basic shit". I could tell all of that, so I tried to be very positive about how I explained it, but that didn't matter. He believes he can't learn it. But he can, if he would only change his beliefs about his own intelligence. He's very good at all the other aspects of the job.

So all of that in mind, as far as trying to measure other people's intelligence, and figure out whether or not someone is intelligent, I don't even think it's worth spending much thought on. There are different sorts of intelligence. It seems to me that what we often define as intelligence is just the ability to reason clearly, or do tasks that involve complex processes. If you see the human mind as having a myriad of modes, of ways of thinking, then intelligence becomes a broader spectrum. Someone unable to reason clearly may be a brilliant artist. Someone who can't even carry a tune may be a brilliant scientist. Someone with a gift for writing may not have a gift for oratory or conversation. What's the point of even trying to figure out "who's smarter?"

There's a funny thing about intelligence. It seems that too much of it tends to land you in a twilight zone of various issues. Many people with high IQ scores find themselves bewildered in the world occupied by other people with vastly lower IQ's. I've followed some high IQ societies and the most prominent feature of people with IQ's above 140 (genius level) is a sense of alienation from the rest of society. It seems that up to a certain point having IQ is a benefit and then quickly becomes a hindrance.

Anyway, there's also a great sense of infatuation in regards to intelligence. Again, based on following some high IQ society letters and posts, there's a great sense of pride in having a high IQ as if some people with extraordinary IQ's are immune to fallacies just based solely on the fact that they have a superior intelligence quotient. Many go on to build theories about the world, cosmos, universe with that knowledge about themselves.

But, in regards to your point, I don't think IQ can be effectively measured just based on a conversation and should not be a basis of discriminating people.

Going off on a tangent again, I think IQ is going to become redundant in the near future. As sci-fi as this sounds computers are soon going to be orders of magnitude beyond human ability.

"You think worm holes are a reality, he thinks it's kind of stupid. Which viewpoint indicates intelligence? (I don't know.)" I think that the person who thinks in a more realistic way, empirically physics / chemistry / biology, exact sciences, tend to have greater traits of general intelligence, always trying to find the absolute truth of the cosmos, in your statement if the other person thinks they are stupid I feel that he tends to understand reality in a different way, although wormholes can be real objects. They can debate because he thinks they are stupid, and with a poll they can create a bigger viewpoint of the debate. Neither side is stupid, but one always tends to be more realistic than another.

If you really want to know your IQ, you can go with a psychologist, online tests doest work.

Thanks for the answer but, i wasn't talking about IQ, my question was if someone has a different viewpoint of reality can be considered as superior intelligence, such as a guy who always is curious and tries to find the absolute truth of the cosmos, to a "high IQ" above 140, who drags about it but doesn't do anything.

Thanks for the answer but, i wasn't talking about IQ, my question was if someone has a different viewpoint of reality can be considered as superior intelligence, such as a guy who always is curious and tries to find the absolute truth of the cosmos, to a "high IQ" above 140, who drags about it but doesn't do anything. — jaValle

Well, the quantifier for intelligence is usually said person's IQ level. But, to answer your question, (and this is my opinion), there's really no substitute for determination, and an abundance of curiosity about the world.

<Hail Curiosity, the absolute endless power that makes us be alive and being able to evolve as a species making us expand into the cosmos in the near future...

Haha, I guess. Though curiosity without diligent determination leaves you laying in bed all day long entertaining every though that comes up. There's a whole bunch of other stuff you can add into the recipe; but, those two stand out the most.

An old psych professor in college put it this way, "Want to is more important than IQ." A person of measured average intelligence (say, 100-110 on a Stanford Binet individually administered test) who is ambitious, energetic, persistent, and curious about the world is likely to become a learned fellow whose intelligence won't be questioned. Similarly, a measured high IQ person (say, 140) who has little curiosity, not much ambition, is lazy, and feckless will probably come off as a dumb cluck.

Plus, people often "get smarter" as they get older. Years of reading, good conversation, paying attention... all that, greatly enrich one's working intellectual resources. So, one "gets smarter" as one gets older.

On the flip side of the issue, people who are extremely depressed can come off as rather dull, because their mental activity is very subdued.