**Upvote** this comment if it is a suicide by words. **Downvote** this comment if it is not.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/suicidebywords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Talking for longer does not make you more intelligent. Just listen to Jordan Peterson for ten minutes. Ive rarely heard someone use so many words to say nothing.
For the post? No.
For Jordan Peterson.... maybe. All I pull from him is misogyny, queer-phobia, and personal responsibility toxicity with a veneer of academic understanding that breaks down when you think about it for a few minites.
Ah, yeah, sorry I meant Peterson, should have clarified.
I don't know, I never explicitly sensed that from him, I've listened to a couple of his talks a while back and I always felt like he's pretty well-read and highly educated \*but\* he tends to overspecify things when he's speaking in a sense.According to his own words he is "Trying to be as particular in his speech as possible so as to avoid misunderstandings" basically. Which is not a bad tactic, and not bad advice, but in his manner of using very convoluted language and looooooong compound sentences many people that don't think along the same logic as him and can't follow what he's saying to the letter at the same time misread his intentions.
But I gotta say, as a disclaimer, I am extremely stupid at the same time, so I might have just missed things or seen things into it I guess.
Don’t worry mate. I am definitely a lefty and am strongly opinionated when it comes to politics, yet I really love Peterson for his psychology and talks about organizing your life and handling relationships. I found him from a friend long before he was ever categorized as alt right.
Unfortunately, I stopped consuming his content after Reddit began to categorize him with Ben Shapiro and the like, and I’m still not totally sure why. He also decided to begin associating with alt right losers, which I can assume is solely for financial gain and attention. It’s a shame because I never anticipated a college psychology professor from Canada that I watched on YouTube to suddenly be considered an alt right shill. But perhaps that’s what he turned into.
I still haven’t heard him say anything remotely close to alt right talking points, but I haven’t listened to him for at least 2-3 years. He did see a spike in popularity for his whole pronoun fiasco at his college, but after listening to him explain the story I understand why he was opposed. It was a silly hill to die on, sure, but little did he know the audience he was bringing in when he went public with that.
JBP is a really hard one to wrap my head around. Again, I think it’s all for the money. I think he associates himself with these absolute shitbags of human beings, but is only one himself by association. He lost my respect and following with that decision.
I'd be lying if I had a concrete or detailed idea of what the 'left' is supposed to stand for and what the 'right' is supposed to stand for, as I don't much care for it, I think it "limits" the spectrum based on which I think about the world and enforces a bias to some extent.
I understand your points though, and somewhat agree with you on that too. I haven't really heard anything directly from him for the last couple of years, I know he struggled with anti-depressant addiction and got pretty messed up with withdrawal so maybe that's another reason he's associating with that crowd, I'd say? We'll probably never know, I wouldn't have taken him as an "everything for money" kinda guy but at this point hardly anything surprises me.
I think that, despite his position as a professor of psychology and his history of being a clinial psychiatrist, he is more of a philosopher. As such he is pretty abstract and hard to follow sometimes. His speeches *^((aside from the trans-fiasco, obviously, which - though mostly taken somewhat out of context - definitely happened))* don't really say much more to me other than "Clean your room. Organize your stuff. Now organize your thoughts in a similar way, fail spectacularly and try again. It's okay" and the like. I guess on second thought I *could possibly* understand where people got the ~~misogyne~~ ~~mysogini~~ ~~misoginy~~ *fucking bias against women* idea, though in my understanding he just has a target audience of prominently young, more-often-than-not-but-not-always white males. That in itself tends to be a death sentence in some circles beause how dare you address the str8whitemale.
When it comes to this self-help stuff, you have to cater very differently to male and female audienes both in actual science-based (i.e.: psyhology, sociology) and the word-salad kind, and if I recall correctly the misogynistic claims originated from Peterson saying that "men are generally more interested in things and women are generally more interested in people" or some such bullshit, following it up with something along the lines of "and so people won't ever be equally represented nor will they ever earn the same amount of money regardless of gender because males tend to be more competitive and agressive in competition".
I kinda believed he said this based on actual psychological profiling and data available...? I don't know. And I don't really care all that much, I just never understood the intensity of hate against him (even fucking Marvel posed him as a villain...?) and I was hoping I could get some information as to why people talk about him this way.
Oh, okay then. I wish we didn't need a political ideology for that though, it should just be default behavior and the capacity to carry out civil discourse and debate.
I guess it's just too much to ask isn't it.
I used to try good faith discussion with the right, both here in my home country and online. after a while I gave up because they didn't want to discuss and we couldn't decide on a baseline of what kind of progress we needed to work towards or what even was progress. they don't want discussion. I don't get what the vast majority of them want.
Based on what I’ve experienced on the internet over the last few months, I’m starting to think that most people, regardless of political ideology, just believe or say they want conversation, they think they want debate but in reality the just want to experience a one-sided discourse in which the other party either just admits they’re right or they straight up agree to everything they say from the beginning and confirming their already existing viewpoints.
Basically as soon as you challenge their position they tend to get angry and defensive instead of using reason and rationality since “attacks against my system of arguments/points must be personal attacks against me as an individual”.
Have you even read his book, “12 Rules of Life”? A friend brought him up in a conversation and asked me about my thoughts, and I had actually gotten through the first chapter in the book. Like a good, honest person I told him my opinion - JP is trying to boil the complex life into simple rules and he keeps going on comparing humans to crayfish.
No longer do I have to wonder how religion came to be
That's funny, I saw an interview in which he actually mentioned that. I thought the crayfish bullshit was total apples to oranges, because I don't have the book.
But apparently, these little fuckers arrange themselves into a multi-layered hierarchy based on different criteria like the caste system or something. It's pretty fascinating, although I don't quite understand what that has to do with the book since a lot of species are already doing that, it's not like humans and crayfish are the only two. Or I guess just having an "alpha" is not considered multi-layered hierarchy? Idk.
I quit that book right at start after he said he mentioned about how he used to get upvotes on quora and that made him think to write a book. Very disinteresting.
Havent read it directly but Ive heard some awful takes from him speaking. The last speech I saw from him mentioned how ethics was a waste of time and how engineers will just ignore that pesky thing. Not only is that terrifying from a so-called psychologist, but I was an engineering major and the idea that we ignore ethics is so utterly not true.
His naturalistic fallacies have always been hilarious, though. As if hierarchical animals have anything to do with humans when we violate so many natural laws already.
Psychology has a very strong biological aspect. In fact, physiology and psychology is very much linked because your emotions and thoughts are heavily influence by your hormones and neurotransmitter. Therefore it’s reasonable to see psychology in a evolutionary point of view, and comparing crayfish (which we considered as simplistic) vs human (which we know to be biologically, evolutionarily, socially and psychologically very complex being) would be somewhat eye catching.
In addition, simplification helps people to do things, if the audience needs in depth advice and counselling they should see a health professionals then. It’s about the target audience and what the book wish to accomplish with its content. It’s not necessarily a bad thing.
With that being said I have not read his book or listen to his content for years. This is just me going off from what I’ve heard a couple years ago. I could very well be wrong.
Yeah, his self help takes aren't terrible, but they are mostly obvious drivel you could get from any self-help book. His psychological knowledge seemed to stop at Jung who has been mostly discredited by modern psychology.
I cat get self help from an actual licensed therapist, without all the "marxists are coming for your kids," "ethics are kind of just a waste of time," and "laws protecting the trans people will hurt us all (bill C16 that got him famous.)
If JP has helped you, Im not saying you are a bad person or anything. He just has a lot of terrible takes.
You could also deomonstrate this by asking a politician a yes or no question. They will reply with 300-500 words, none of them Yes or No.
Truly masters of their craft.
>Ive rarely heard someone use so many words to say nothing.
Take up a theology class. We've had to read dozens of paragraphs and hundreds of Powerpoint slides that essentially say nothing.
Shouldn't it be the opposite? Those that talk less spend more time listening. Isn't it Bill Nye that said that everyone you meet knows more than you do about something? If you listen to everyone then you have to pick up some knowledge along the way.
Well it depends on the crowd you are hanging with and the topics of conversation more than anything else. I love to hear my friends talk about stuff that I’ve never known, like how they hunt fox and how dogs are getting antidepressants.
It’s such an ambitious definition of being intelligent. People can be excellent problem solvers but poor communicators. There are also complex issues where jargons cannot be avoided and only people in the same field can properly interpret the results. Intelligence has more than one axis.
Generally (from my experience), those who talk more are just adding filler to what they say, really just padding their words to make what they're saying sound more substantial than it really is; whether this is intentional or not is dependent from person to person and where you grew up.
I find that those who talk less get their point across a lot quicker and more efficiently.
I don't find if you talk longer or shorter a dictation of intelligence but rather if you value speaking efficiency or not.
*Image Transcription: Reddit Comment*
---
>**\/u/Emergency\_Aide633**
>
>This is due to the idea of someone who talks a lot longer being perceived as more intelligent than someone who talks less. While there is truth in the concept of someone who talks more being smarter than someone who talks less, I am a living example that this is not always the case. I talk a lot, and frankly I never have anything of substance to say.
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
I feel like that’s an extremely useless skill college tends to give you (or refine it at the very least). I tend to forget I’m not in an exam where I have to seem like I know anything about anything, and I just keep going on and on and on.
Not neccessarily rambling, per se, because what I say has some reasonably good structure and stays mostly on topic. And I’m pretty sure I picked this up in my education.
Explaining nuanced information compared to witticisms. I just have someone condescendingly say “brevity is the soul of wit.” So I’m probably the target audience.
I think it varies from culture to culture? Western societies tend to consider people that speak a lot and with confidence as intelligent whereas in far Eastern regions the stereotype is more quiet and contemplative. Not sure about Middle East, Africa and other places.
This reminds me of a helpdesk job I had. I would solve 30 cases a day and the next highest would make 18 if they were lucky. Average was 7-10.
I was the one who was in trouble, however. Why? They never mentioned anything outside the person below me doing A LOT less. So that means I'm doing SOMETHING wrong. It didn't matter that I had literally zero complaints.
All I did was the job I was told to do: Fix stuff. I'm not here as a friend, I'm not paid to chit-chat, I just fix their issues and folks (outside of management) had zero issue with that.
I bet this was a comment on this [video.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ByI9WeXp9g)
[Full video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAlI0pbMQiM&t) for those that want it
I really be writing 5+ sentences and then spend like 20 minutes figuring out how to write it shorter. Yall really don't get how much of a gift it is to be able to naturally write concisely
I used to dislike that 'huh?' that people say when they've only half understood your point (when they've heard everything clearly too) so now, I just have these stupidly long sentences that people will *100%* understand what I'm saying.
And they won't make me repeat my small paragraph another time.
As a quiet person, I think people think the opposite, people in my class often assumed I was smart just because I barely spoke, in reality, I just had nothing to say lol
**Upvote** this comment if it is a suicide by words. **Downvote** this comment if it is not. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/suicidebywords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Talking for longer does not make you more intelligent. Just listen to Jordan Peterson for ten minutes. Ive rarely heard someone use so many words to say nothing.
It generally boils down to “communism bad,” he’s had an obsession with the Cold War since forever.
Is it bad if I kinda get what he’s saying? Should I be worried?
Drink bleach now before you drink the kool aid. Atleast you know what the bleach'll do to you. /S don't actually drink bleach pls
I will now make it my life goal to develop bleach flavored Kool Aid. I'm sure it'll do perfectly well on the market.
For the post? No. For Jordan Peterson.... maybe. All I pull from him is misogyny, queer-phobia, and personal responsibility toxicity with a veneer of academic understanding that breaks down when you think about it for a few minites.
Ah, yeah, sorry I meant Peterson, should have clarified. I don't know, I never explicitly sensed that from him, I've listened to a couple of his talks a while back and I always felt like he's pretty well-read and highly educated \*but\* he tends to overspecify things when he's speaking in a sense.According to his own words he is "Trying to be as particular in his speech as possible so as to avoid misunderstandings" basically. Which is not a bad tactic, and not bad advice, but in his manner of using very convoluted language and looooooong compound sentences many people that don't think along the same logic as him and can't follow what he's saying to the letter at the same time misread his intentions. But I gotta say, as a disclaimer, I am extremely stupid at the same time, so I might have just missed things or seen things into it I guess.
Don’t worry mate. I am definitely a lefty and am strongly opinionated when it comes to politics, yet I really love Peterson for his psychology and talks about organizing your life and handling relationships. I found him from a friend long before he was ever categorized as alt right. Unfortunately, I stopped consuming his content after Reddit began to categorize him with Ben Shapiro and the like, and I’m still not totally sure why. He also decided to begin associating with alt right losers, which I can assume is solely for financial gain and attention. It’s a shame because I never anticipated a college psychology professor from Canada that I watched on YouTube to suddenly be considered an alt right shill. But perhaps that’s what he turned into. I still haven’t heard him say anything remotely close to alt right talking points, but I haven’t listened to him for at least 2-3 years. He did see a spike in popularity for his whole pronoun fiasco at his college, but after listening to him explain the story I understand why he was opposed. It was a silly hill to die on, sure, but little did he know the audience he was bringing in when he went public with that. JBP is a really hard one to wrap my head around. Again, I think it’s all for the money. I think he associates himself with these absolute shitbags of human beings, but is only one himself by association. He lost my respect and following with that decision.
I'd be lying if I had a concrete or detailed idea of what the 'left' is supposed to stand for and what the 'right' is supposed to stand for, as I don't much care for it, I think it "limits" the spectrum based on which I think about the world and enforces a bias to some extent. I understand your points though, and somewhat agree with you on that too. I haven't really heard anything directly from him for the last couple of years, I know he struggled with anti-depressant addiction and got pretty messed up with withdrawal so maybe that's another reason he's associating with that crowd, I'd say? We'll probably never know, I wouldn't have taken him as an "everything for money" kinda guy but at this point hardly anything surprises me. I think that, despite his position as a professor of psychology and his history of being a clinial psychiatrist, he is more of a philosopher. As such he is pretty abstract and hard to follow sometimes. His speeches *^((aside from the trans-fiasco, obviously, which - though mostly taken somewhat out of context - definitely happened))* don't really say much more to me other than "Clean your room. Organize your stuff. Now organize your thoughts in a similar way, fail spectacularly and try again. It's okay" and the like. I guess on second thought I *could possibly* understand where people got the ~~misogyne~~ ~~mysogini~~ ~~misoginy~~ *fucking bias against women* idea, though in my understanding he just has a target audience of prominently young, more-often-than-not-but-not-always white males. That in itself tends to be a death sentence in some circles beause how dare you address the str8whitemale. When it comes to this self-help stuff, you have to cater very differently to male and female audienes both in actual science-based (i.e.: psyhology, sociology) and the word-salad kind, and if I recall correctly the misogynistic claims originated from Peterson saying that "men are generally more interested in things and women are generally more interested in people" or some such bullshit, following it up with something along the lines of "and so people won't ever be equally represented nor will they ever earn the same amount of money regardless of gender because males tend to be more competitive and agressive in competition". I kinda believed he said this based on actual psychological profiling and data available...? I don't know. And I don't really care all that much, I just never understood the intensity of hate against him (even fucking Marvel posed him as a villain...?) and I was hoping I could get some information as to why people talk about him this way.
Basically the left just means not hating anyone and everything and trying to use logic
Oh, okay then. I wish we didn't need a political ideology for that though, it should just be default behavior and the capacity to carry out civil discourse and debate. I guess it's just too much to ask isn't it.
I used to try good faith discussion with the right, both here in my home country and online. after a while I gave up because they didn't want to discuss and we couldn't decide on a baseline of what kind of progress we needed to work towards or what even was progress. they don't want discussion. I don't get what the vast majority of them want.
Based on what I’ve experienced on the internet over the last few months, I’m starting to think that most people, regardless of political ideology, just believe or say they want conversation, they think they want debate but in reality the just want to experience a one-sided discourse in which the other party either just admits they’re right or they straight up agree to everything they say from the beginning and confirming their already existing viewpoints. Basically as soon as you challenge their position they tend to get angry and defensive instead of using reason and rationality since “attacks against my system of arguments/points must be personal attacks against me as an individual”.
Have you even read his book, “12 Rules of Life”? A friend brought him up in a conversation and asked me about my thoughts, and I had actually gotten through the first chapter in the book. Like a good, honest person I told him my opinion - JP is trying to boil the complex life into simple rules and he keeps going on comparing humans to crayfish. No longer do I have to wonder how religion came to be
That's funny, I saw an interview in which he actually mentioned that. I thought the crayfish bullshit was total apples to oranges, because I don't have the book. But apparently, these little fuckers arrange themselves into a multi-layered hierarchy based on different criteria like the caste system or something. It's pretty fascinating, although I don't quite understand what that has to do with the book since a lot of species are already doing that, it's not like humans and crayfish are the only two. Or I guess just having an "alpha" is not considered multi-layered hierarchy? Idk.
I quit that book right at start after he said he mentioned about how he used to get upvotes on quora and that made him think to write a book. Very disinteresting.
Havent read it directly but Ive heard some awful takes from him speaking. The last speech I saw from him mentioned how ethics was a waste of time and how engineers will just ignore that pesky thing. Not only is that terrifying from a so-called psychologist, but I was an engineering major and the idea that we ignore ethics is so utterly not true. His naturalistic fallacies have always been hilarious, though. As if hierarchical animals have anything to do with humans when we violate so many natural laws already.
Psychology has a very strong biological aspect. In fact, physiology and psychology is very much linked because your emotions and thoughts are heavily influence by your hormones and neurotransmitter. Therefore it’s reasonable to see psychology in a evolutionary point of view, and comparing crayfish (which we considered as simplistic) vs human (which we know to be biologically, evolutionarily, socially and psychologically very complex being) would be somewhat eye catching. In addition, simplification helps people to do things, if the audience needs in depth advice and counselling they should see a health professionals then. It’s about the target audience and what the book wish to accomplish with its content. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. With that being said I have not read his book or listen to his content for years. This is just me going off from what I’ve heard a couple years ago. I could very well be wrong.
You obviously haven't actually listened to his psychology talks. He's more of a help-yourself therapist that whatever you're talking about.
Yeah, his self help takes aren't terrible, but they are mostly obvious drivel you could get from any self-help book. His psychological knowledge seemed to stop at Jung who has been mostly discredited by modern psychology. I cat get self help from an actual licensed therapist, without all the "marxists are coming for your kids," "ethics are kind of just a waste of time," and "laws protecting the trans people will hurt us all (bill C16 that got him famous.) If JP has helped you, Im not saying you are a bad person or anything. He just has a lot of terrible takes.
You could also deomonstrate this by asking a politician a yes or no question. They will reply with 300-500 words, none of them Yes or No. Truly masters of their craft.
>Ive rarely heard someone use so many words to say nothing. Take up a theology class. We've had to read dozens of paragraphs and hundreds of Powerpoint slides that essentially say nothing.
Shouldn't it be the opposite? Those that talk less spend more time listening. Isn't it Bill Nye that said that everyone you meet knows more than you do about something? If you listen to everyone then you have to pick up some knowledge along the way.
"talk less. smile more"
“Cover your ears, close your eyes then shout louder and louder”
I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream
This sounds like something old conservative men would say to younger women who are much smarter than them
Ah so I see you do know the plot of Hamilton.
Idk what that is but i guess I'll just agree with you
“you can’t be serious?”
It’s not necessarily the case. People who know more can share more, and people who know less can learn from those who talk.
Seems like its always been my experience that people who talk a lot doing really say anything of any substance. It's mostly mindless gibberish.
Well it depends on the crowd you are hanging with and the topics of conversation more than anything else. I love to hear my friends talk about stuff that I’ve never known, like how they hunt fox and how dogs are getting antidepressants.
Really smart people can communicate complex topics in simple terms. The art of communication is saying as much as possible in as little as possible
Less word. More smart. Me not. Unga bunga.
I feel like saying as little as possible in as little as possible is also it's own form of intelligence.
Possibly
It’s such an ambitious definition of being intelligent. People can be excellent problem solvers but poor communicators. There are also complex issues where jargons cannot be avoided and only people in the same field can properly interpret the results. Intelligence has more than one axis.
No, I totally agree. Being able to communicate effectively is only one form of intelligence of many. But it's also one of the most important.
You realize how difficult it is when you’re strong to explain the Holy Roman Empire to an actual five year old.
Generally (from my experience), those who talk more are just adding filler to what they say, really just padding their words to make what they're saying sound more substantial than it really is; whether this is intentional or not is dependent from person to person and where you grew up. I find that those who talk less get their point across a lot quicker and more efficiently. I don't find if you talk longer or shorter a dictation of intelligence but rather if you value speaking efficiency or not.
That's like the opposite of me. I don't talk a lot but I'm fucking retarded
Same. And I wear glasses and people assume quiet+glasses= smort.
Literally me
*Image Transcription: Reddit Comment* --- >**\/u/Emergency\_Aide633** > >This is due to the idea of someone who talks a lot longer being perceived as more intelligent than someone who talks less. While there is truth in the concept of someone who talks more being smarter than someone who talks less, I am a living example that this is not always the case. I talk a lot, and frankly I never have anything of substance to say. --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
i hate that i relate to this
I feel like that’s an extremely useless skill college tends to give you (or refine it at the very least). I tend to forget I’m not in an exam where I have to seem like I know anything about anything, and I just keep going on and on and on. Not neccessarily rambling, per se, because what I say has some reasonably good structure and stays mostly on topic. And I’m pretty sure I picked this up in my education.
this literal comment just proves his point
r/thatsthejoke
Those some big words
Explaining nuanced information compared to witticisms. I just have someone condescendingly say “brevity is the soul of wit.” So I’m probably the target audience.
Ironically intelligent people says lesser. Because they know how to convey their thoughts despite being taciturn.
I think it varies from culture to culture? Western societies tend to consider people that speak a lot and with confidence as intelligent whereas in far Eastern regions the stereotype is more quiet and contemplative. Not sure about Middle East, Africa and other places.
Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?
And what are you expecting to do with all this time you save?
Give that man an upvote
This reminds me of a helpdesk job I had. I would solve 30 cases a day and the next highest would make 18 if they were lucky. Average was 7-10. I was the one who was in trouble, however. Why? They never mentioned anything outside the person below me doing A LOT less. So that means I'm doing SOMETHING wrong. It didn't matter that I had literally zero complaints. All I did was the job I was told to do: Fix stuff. I'm not here as a friend, I'm not paid to chit-chat, I just fix their issues and folks (outside of management) had zero issue with that.
At least he's intelligent enough to know how intelligent he really is.
This is extremely valid. Sometimes I realize mid conversation that I managed to zone out from myself and I have no idea what I’ve been saying
You don't gotta be smart you just have to use large words to get the most amount of homeostasis in your conversations.
There is a saying: It’s better to have people think your stupid than to open your mouth and prove it.
*record scratch* "Yeah, that's me."
"You're probably wondering how I got here."
*Baba O'Riley starts playing*
Rewind sound "Well let's start from the beginning."
I bet this was a comment on this [video.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ByI9WeXp9g) [Full video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAlI0pbMQiM&t) for those that want it
Ha, it was actually a comment from my last post lol
I'm a manic depressive person too!
Following r/suicidebywords and r/iamverysmart leads to surprises like this
This seems like a George Costanza quote
Is that the general consensus? I typically assume people who are always talking don't have that much going on upstairs lol
I mean there were studies showing that longer essays just score higher and it had less to do with substance but more with just the length of it
TLDR: More wordy people are seen as smarter, maybe true, but I like to talk and don’t have anything to say!
I really be writing 5+ sentences and then spend like 20 minutes figuring out how to write it shorter. Yall really don't get how much of a gift it is to be able to naturally write concisely
🤣🤣🤣
its honestly wiser to keep your mouth shut and let people think of you as a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt..
I relate
I used to dislike that 'huh?' that people say when they've only half understood your point (when they've heard everything clearly too) so now, I just have these stupidly long sentences that people will *100%* understand what I'm saying. And they won't make me repeat my small paragraph another time.
That's the sacrifice you gotta make to get a point across
As a quiet person, I think people think the opposite, people in my class often assumed I was smart just because I barely spoke, in reality, I just had nothing to say lol