A Semi-Parodic Framework for Estimating Cognitive Horsepower Through Chat Interactions
Scoring Categories
1. Domain Fluidity Score (0-40 points)
How gracefully someone moves between different conceptual territories
40 points (The Polymath): Makes unexpected connections between quantum mechanics and sandwich construction. References obscure mathematical theorems while discussing gardening. Probably has strong opinions about the philosophical implications of sorting algorithms.
30 points (The Connector): Can relate their expertise to other fields without sounding like they’re bullshitting. Makes analogies that actually illuminate rather than confuse.
20 points (The Specialist): Very smart within their domain, but struggles to translate concepts outside their comfort zone. Still valuable, just domain-locked.
10 points (The Googler): Uses technical terms correctly but in ways that suggest recent Wikipedia browsing rather than deep understanding.
0 points (The Mansplainer): Confidently wrong about everything outside their narrow lane. Possibly wrong about things inside their lane too.
2. Abstraction Tolerance Index (0-30 points)
How comfortable someone is with incomplete, ambiguous, or purely theoretical concepts
30 points (The Philosopher): Comfortable discussing the implications of non-existent mathematical objects. Can have productive conversations about things that might not be real. Probably enjoys arguing about whether mathematics is discovered or invented.
20 points (The Theorist): Happy to work with abstractions but needs some grounding. Can discuss hypotheticals productively.
10 points (The Practitioner): Prefers concrete examples but can follow abstract reasoning when necessary. Keeps asking “but what would you actually use this for?”
0 points (The Literalist): Everything must be immediately practical and tangible. Gets frustrated by thought experiments. Probably hates philosophy classes.
3. Pattern Recognition Addiction Level (0-25 points)
The compulsive need to find underlying structures in everything
25 points (The Systematizer): Sees patterns that shouldn’t exist. Can derive personality traits from someone’s variable naming conventions. Probably reorganizes their spice rack by molecular structure.
20 points (The Analyst): Good at spotting genuine patterns and trends. Makes useful predictions based on structural similarities.
15 points (The Observer): Notices patterns when they’re pointed out. Can follow systematic reasoning.
5 points (The Random Walker): Patterns are just coincidences, man. Everything is basically chaos with occasional lucky streaks.
4. Intellectual Honesty Coefficient (0-20 points)
Willingness to admit ignorance and uncertainty
20 points (The Skeptic): “I don’t know” is a complete sentence. Comfortable with uncertainty. Updates beliefs based on new evidence. Probably annoys people by being right about being wrong.
15 points (The Cautious): Generally honest about limitations but sometimes hedges unnecessarily. Good epistemic hygiene.
10 points (The Overconfident): Knows a lot but occasionally presents speculation as fact. Still generally trustworthy.
0 points (The Dunning-Kruger Victim): Knows just enough to be dangerous. Confident about everything, especially things they learned five minutes ago.
5. Conversational Jujitsu Rating (0-15 points)
Ability to redirect energy rather than just adding force
15 points (The Aikido Master): Takes whatever you throw at them and builds something interesting with it. Conversations go in unexpected but productive directions. Makes everyone else sound smarter.
10 points (The Good Partner): Builds on others’ ideas constructively. Good at collaborative thinking.
5 points (The Bulldozer): Smart but tends to steamroll conversations with their own agenda. Technically correct but socially exhausting.
0 points (The Black Hole): Sucks all energy out of discussions. Every conversation becomes about their favorite topic. Probably interrupts a lot.
6. Meta-Cognitive Awareness Index (0-15 points)
Understanding of their own thinking processes
15 points (The Recursive Thinker): Thinks about thinking about thinking. Can analyze their own cognitive biases in real-time. Probably has strong opinions about consciousness and free will.
10 points (The Self-Aware): Good understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses. Can catch themselves making mistakes.
5 points (The Unconscious Competent): Smart but doesn’t really know how they do what they do. Gives terrible advice because they can’t explain their process.
0 points (The Blind Spot): No insight into their own thinking. Probably thinks they’re more logical than they are.
7. Boredom Threshold Factor (0-10 points)
How quickly they get intellectually restless
10 points (The Hummingbird): Gets bored with conventional solutions immediately. Probably redesigns simple systems for fun. May have ADHD or just be cursed with curiosity.
7 points (The Explorer): Enjoys novel approaches but can stick with necessary routine work. Good balance of curiosity and persistence.
3 points (The Steady): Content with established methods. Values stability over novelty. Probably very good at execution.
0 points (The Rut-Dweller): Same approach to everything. Novelty is threatening. Probably still using Internet Explorer.
8. Humor Calibration Score (0-5 points)
Ability to be funny without being an asshole
5 points (The Wit): Makes intellectual jokes that illuminate rather than obscure. Can be self-deprecating about their intelligence. Probably makes good puns.
3 points (The Occasionally Amusing): Sometimes funny, usually appropriate. Understands their audience.
1 point (The Try-Hard): Makes references nobody gets. Laughs at their own jokes. Probably quotes Monty Python.
0 points (The Insufferable): Uses humor as a weapon. Makes people feel stupid for not getting their jokes. Definitely quotes Monty Python.
Scoring Interpretation
140-160 points: The Dangerous Intellect You’re probably reading this rubric and finding flaws in the methodology while simultaneously appreciating the meta-joke about quantifying intelligence through a rubric that mocks quantifying intelligence. You’re definitely overqualified for most jobs and probably underqualified for human relationships.
120-139 points: The Productive Genius Smart enough to do real damage but stable enough to channel it constructively. You probably have strong opinions about programming languages and get frustrated by inefficient systems. People ask for your advice but don’t always take it.
100-119 points: The Solid Contributor Genuinely intelligent without being exhausting about it. You probably solve problems other people didn’t know they had. Good at explaining complex things simply. Actually useful in meetings.
80-99 points: The Competent Professional Smart enough to do your job well and occasionally offer insights. You probably don’t spend much time thinking about thinking, which is honestly pretty healthy.
60-79 points: The Functional Human You get things done and don’t overthink everything. Probably happier than the people who scored higher. Definitely more fun at parties.
Below 60 points: The Confidence Paradox Either you’re being unfairly harsh on yourself (which suggests more intelligence than your score indicates) or you lack the self-awareness to score accurately (which… also suggests something about intelligence). This scoring system may be broken.
Disclaimer
This rubric is approximately 73% bullshit by volume, though the specific percentage may vary depending on your perspective on intelligence, measurement, and the ontological status of personality traits. Results not guaranteed to correlate with actual cognitive ability, success in life, or capacity for happiness. May cause existential questioning about the nature of intelligence. Not recommended for use in hiring decisions, academic assessments, or dating profiles. For a more serious (though equally problematic) approach to intelligence measurement, see “On the Inadmissibility of Linear Psychometrics in Transfinite Domains”, which explores why traditional IQ metrics fail when applied to recursive, self-modifying cognitive systems.
Side effects may include: increased skepticism about psychometrics, compulsive pattern-seeking, tendency to analyze conversations instead of enjoying them, and an irresistible urge to redesign flawed systems you encounter.