I should have worded that a bit differently .. the guy's title was the "administrative engineer" - in other words the 'lead' for the project I was on.

Yes, that makes more sense... slightly.

Some of these titles make giggle from time to time... "administrative engineer" is not the worst I have seen by far. Still, I thought "lead engineer" / "lead programmer" was a generally accepted term for that? Or did I misunderstand the role this title was given to?

Some of these titles make giggle from time to time... "administrative engineer" is not the worst I have seen by far. Still, I thought "lead engineer" / "lead programmer" was a generally accepted term for that? Or did I misunderstand the role this title was given to?

To me, a lead engineer is different form an administrative engineer. The lead engineer is the person who makes the technical decisions, whereas the administrative engineer is concerned more with budgetary and HR concerns, though they are still a formally trained engineer.

Some of these titles make giggle from time to time... "administrative engineer" is not the worst I have seen by far. Still, I thought "lead engineer" / "lead programmer" was a generally accepted term for that? Or did I misunderstand the role this title was given to?

For what it's worth - he had a cabinet next to his desk that was full of binders. Each binder was a specific task that had to be done during the outage. He'd hand out binders to each team in the morning. After each team completed their task, he'd verify all the paperwork was correct, than enter the data into the company's system.

To me, a lead engineer is different form an administrative engineer. The lead engineer is the person who makes the technical decisions, whereas the administrative engineer is concerned more with budgetary and HR concerns, though they are still a formally trained engineer.

Ah, I see. Clearly I am showing my long career in IT departments of non-technical companys. Our managers are mostly non-engineers even in IT, and the ones that are do not seem to be proud of it.

For what it's worth - he had a cabinet next to his desk that was full of binders. Each binder was a specific task that had to be done during the outage. He'd hand out binders to each team in the morning. After each team completed their task, he'd verify all the paperwork was correct, than enter the data into the company's system.

Okay... that sounds like a low tech version of redmine or trello... hope he liked paperwork? Not the right job for me I guess :)

I dunno what intelligence is, but my limited thinking ability led me to believe that being clever/smart/bright (damn my English) is much less important/influential in understanding what the crap is going on than the information that gets to you. And that is pretty limited, distorted, unreliable, etc.

There are many kinds of intelligences according (of course) to the theory of multiple intelligences.

You can be a genius at math (Logical-Mathematical intelligence) but you can't be able to communicate correctly through words (verbal-linguistic).

I would agree with the "ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" mixed with this one. It just falls down to which skills and knowledge you acquire (and more importantly to me) you apply the best.

I always thought Intelligence has something to do with mana. If you have higher intelligence, you have more mana at your disposal. You've got a denser blue bar hovering over your head.

Intelligence is not the guy on you tube bangning his gun on the ground while looking down the barrel, boom lol 1 less a cent

I don´t know if this is right or not, but I tend to think of people as ¨capable¨ or ¨not capable¨. My uncle has a PH.d and knows how to fix a car. My brother in law has been working for Telus for the past 30 years, and knows how to fix just about anything. Both of them are very intelligent and both of them are very capable. Not only are they very smart, they are very wise, and they know how to get things done.

Pure intelligence is over-rated in my opinion. I would rather have capable people around me.

Wassail.

There are so many kinds of intelligence.

A person who may be "book smart" may not have any serious experience. Is one necessarily more intelligent than the other?

I may be an expert on x86, another person an expert on ARM9. Is one less intelligent?

I may be a computer nerd, someone else a social nerd, someone else a mechanical nerd, someone else a music nerd. Does that mean any are necessarily more intelligent?

The IQ score was never meant to be used the way people use it commonly. It was just a standardized test with 100 as the average score for that age and each individual score was the deviation from the mean. It is not/was not meant as a fixed number, it changes with age and experience and changes by the test you take.

I'd call intelligence the ability to apply experience, knowledge, and skills. Some people may have more of each to apply, some people may be more skilled, or more knowledgeable, or have more experience. In that respect I'm more intelligent than a child as I have much more ability to apply experience, knowledge, and skills. I could not say that I have one score and they have another score. I can say that I have more experience in an area, or that they have more skill in another area.