In dnd heroes get strong enough to wrestle with a dragon through magic and what not. I don’t think any human devoid of stuff like that would even get to 20 str.
Maybe int and wis are different, I don’t know what 20 int would really be like.
I was just basing myself off OP’s scale, where 10 was “average” and 30 was “world class”, which I interpret as shifting the scale compared to how it would be in a dnd-game, such that the whole scale applies to actual humans.
In that spirit, I think it’s fair to put a talented engineer at 20 int, and an absurdly talented polymath at 30 int. My personal experience is that engineers with some years of field experience are often more “intelligent” (i.e. better at general problem solving) than most PhD’s.
You know, I am about 15 years into my Comp Sci career. I was just thinking about how some solutions to problems just “appear” these days. I was thinking it was wisdom, i have seen the same types of problems for years and know how to fix them better
I remember as a student when I couldn’t understand how professors could “just see” the solutions to problems. I’ve been reflecting after teaching a bit that I’m becoming that person, and how it just feels natural now, and that it’s really just because once you’ve seen enough problems in your field everything kind of just fits together, so new problems don’t really look that new anymore. It feels good to be honest, but I have a hard time thinking of it as wisdom, more just accumulated experience (then again, what is really “wisdom”?)
I’m being needlessly pedantic.
In dnd heroes get strong enough to wrestle with a dragon through magic and what not. I don’t think any human devoid of stuff like that would even get to 20 str.
Maybe int and wis are different, I don’t know what 20 int would really be like.
I was just basing myself off OP’s scale, where 10 was “average” and 30 was “world class”, which I interpret as shifting the scale compared to how it would be in a dnd-game, such that the whole scale applies to actual humans.
In that spirit, I think it’s fair to put a talented engineer at 20 int, and an absurdly talented polymath at 30 int. My personal experience is that engineers with some years of field experience are often more “intelligent” (i.e. better at general problem solving) than most PhD’s.
You know, I am about 15 years into my Comp Sci career. I was just thinking about how some solutions to problems just “appear” these days. I was thinking it was wisdom, i have seen the same types of problems for years and know how to fix them better
I remember as a student when I couldn’t understand how professors could “just see” the solutions to problems. I’ve been reflecting after teaching a bit that I’m becoming that person, and how it just feels natural now, and that it’s really just because once you’ve seen enough problems in your field everything kind of just fits together, so new problems don’t really look that new anymore. It feels good to be honest, but I have a hard time thinking of it as wisdom, more just accumulated experience (then again, what is really “wisdom”?)
Haha, even when playing DND I don’t really understand wisdom :)
What do you teach?
“Wisdom”: You’re a sorcerer with a long beard. “Intelligence”: You’re the annoying engineering type that breaks the DM’s beta in creative ways.
I’m a chemist, and I lecture in some engineering-related courses (mostly thermodynamics and mathematics)
Ooh very cool. I was never any good at Chemistry, but it looks fascinating