You’re right, it’s clear you don’t know.
There’s many social disorders like anxiety, ptsd, adhd and autism which all impact speech and communication but have little to no impact on other areas of intelligence.
You even derail any argument you were attempting to make in your second paragraph “that language absolutely molds our image of reality.”
Your image or how you perceive someone has no indication of someone’s intelligence which was my point. That’s just your opinion of some based on what you expect which is largely impacted by your own personal upbringing, culture and what YOU think is intelligence. It’s your opinion, that’s it.
You then continue to go off the rails talking about being brought up western. United States is a melting pot of all different types of cultures and religions all with differing beliefs and norms all which impact how someone acts or communicates. Acting like growing up in a Samaon family and culture like Tua has doesn’t impact everything is wild. If you ever took a millisecond to read about him it’s pretty clear it has a large impact on his entire life. Downplaying that is wild and comical. Even take two people from the same religion from the north east and another from down south and you’ll have two completely different ways of speaking from speed to punctuation and enunciation. You may claim one sounds more intelligent than the other but that’s purely your opinion based on your world and beliefs, not reality.
There’s also no general overall intelligence trait. Everyone’s brain is different and some may excel in certain areas while others do in different areas, doesn’t mean one is more intelligent then another.
I do agree with the second part of your comments in terms of yes these are young people that generally get little to no media training and navigating between growing as a player while balancing a personal life while in the spotlight at all times and having to just learn to always say and do the right things can be difficult.
No, my message was to highlight the real concept of Sapir-Whorf / Linguistic Relativity...something which is acknowledged & studied by academics looking at cultures across the world.
Based on those concepts, we can now agree that one's
capacity to describe complexity in the observed environment, directly affects that person's ability to do the observing.
To anyone new to this please READ THAT SENTENCE AGAIN!
...our ability to
speak partly controls our ability to think about and see the world!
In essence, this concept claims that perception & description form a 2-way street...which is not what most people would think!
...it's the (freaky) fact that how our cultures teach us to speak, drives the way in which we think (and notice complexity) in the world around us and that this never-ending cycle leads to people literally having differing abilities when it comes to spotting complexity.
The idea that our language has physical affects on our brains (and how they differ) is a revelation but also somewhat obvious when you think about it. Why wouldn't it?!
Some people cannot see complexity that may be apparent to others and this is largely driven by how cultural communication is done.
Hence the reference to Wittgenstein...not being able to fathom that which we can't describe and such.
In a real world analogy, someone without the words and cultural context to describe something really can't "see" that thing at all. And this is physically measurable in people across the world. How we see color is usually brought up as the example. Some cultures literally see colors differently than us because of the cultural contexts in which those colors are understood....subtle differences in certain shades may be much more enhanced because those people are essentially taught to look for them.
When it comes to functional intelligence, I don't think it's harmful to extrapolate that a lack of sophistication in how one
describes things they do & see is a comment on how that person is probably thinking about those things.
Human language contains A LOT of information about how we see the world.
Bringing this full circle. Let's have a good-faith discussion on how this relates to Tua.
I think what limited stuff we can talk about with any confidence relates to what we can pretty easily see right in front of us. If Tua doesn't seem like much of a leader it's probably because his paradigm calls for him to act differently. I think a great challenge for Tua over the last few years has been adopting a new paradigm wherein he's not just the soldier and more the general.
From Tua's perspective, there are a lot of unknowns in that new paradigm:
How much is lead-by-example?
How much is energy & enthusiasm?
How much is intellectual understanding & mastery of the offense?
How much is combatting other dominant personalities?
How do you deal with someone being insubordinate?
I think Tua struggled as a leader because he simply didn't have the ability to see the kind of leadership we're talking when his paradigm was that of a soldier.
In his family, his father may have authority based on an intimate connection with each individual, for instance. But in the professional world, it's much different. Your boss doesn't have the same authority you might give a familial elder. Professional leaders don't get to have an intimate & close relationship with each individual they work with.
Hence, I think Tua has had to completely learn this new way of "seeing" leadership in those around him.
Personally, I think he's probably doing fine. I see problematic personalities more as a mark against the front office than Tua failing to 'control' them with authority / dominance. That is, Tyreek is going to act a fool everywhere he goes. Shame on the Front Office for bringing him in. Tyreek being selfish isn't a mark against Tua's authority. After all, Mahomes is seen as a good leader and Tyreek was becoming problematic there, too. KC sent him packing.
As it relates to how all the well-behaved players see Tua...well, they all seem to like him a lot.
What I didn't like seeing in Tua early on in the McDaniel era was his willingness to confess certain private feelings to the media, a habit which did not serve his image nor his position as a leader. His confessions undermined his goals by opening up real doubts about his maturity and authority within the building.
In hindsight, I suspect (if he's learned anything) that he'd probably keep some of that more close to the vest in an effort to minimize the public scrutiny over his confidence and emotional well-being.
It's very hard to be a leader when people think you're emotionally unstable.
