Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 9:59:25 AM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:

>> Daniel Kahnemann describing his co-author Amso Tversky:
>>
>> | Many people who know Amos thought he was the most intellignet person
>> | they had ever met. He was brilliant, voluble and charismatic.
>>
>> I didn't remember seeing "voluble" before. Obviously, from the above, it
>> should be high praise. So I was surprised that the dictionary
>> explanations don't suggest that, really. Synonyms that pop up in the
>> definitions include "glib", "talkative", "garrulous", "loquacious",
>> which I all classify as negative. The only positive synonym is "fluent",
>> but even that is nowhere near as admirable as "brilliant". At least the
>> thesaurus is offering "articulate" and "well-spoken", but then also
>> "gushing", "gossipy" and "prolix".

> Yes, it's not complimentary. Maybe it was an old joke between them.

>> Where is the disconnect? Is "voluble" a more positive way to say those
>> things? Do I just have to gather from context when it's meant positive?
>> Or is my personal dislike of people who talk a lot interfering?
>>
>> "Charismatic" as well is at least a double-edged sword to me - it
>> describes the kind of person who you (or at least many people) may (want
>> to) believe even if they are talking nonsense.

> It has no implication of nonsense. (Or believing: just fascination.)

If a person (that i know) is the most intelligent person i've ever met,
and also brilliant and charismatic
------- i'd want him or her to be maximally VOLUBLE to me!

(also in Emails)



note Quinn C' s great Xface !