Habit 1: Changing Their Mind Mid-Argument

Few things irritate people more in conversation than someone who contradicts themselves. Someone who states a position with apparent confidence, then stops mid-thought and says, “Actually, I think I was wrong about that.” It reads as wishy-washy, underprepared or lacking conviction. In a meeting, it can cost someone credibility. In an argument, it looks like surrender.

What it actually reflects, however, is one of the clearest behavioral markers of higher intelligence: belief updating, or the willingness to revise a held position when confronted with new evidence, even when that confrontation happens in real time, in public, at social cost.

A 2024 study published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications found consistent evidence that individuals with higher fluid intelligence changed their attitudes more readily in response to correction, while those with lower reasoning ability showed a stronger tendency to persist with misinformation even after receiving a correction message. In other words, the person in the room most willing to say “I was wrong” is often, cognitively speaking, the most capable one there.

This connects to a broader pattern researchers have identified in how intelligent people relate to uncertainty. Research shows that individuals with a lower need for cognitive closure tend to tolerate ambiguity more easily, and separate lines of work suggest that higher cognitive ability is associated with greater openness and cognitive flexibility. Where most people feel pressure to land on a position and hold it, highly intelligent individuals are more comfortable sitting in the revision process, even when that process is visible to others.

The frustrating part for observers is precisely this: the intelligent person doesn’t feel the urgency to perform certainty before they’re ready. And if the thinking is still happening, they’ll do it out loud.

Consider the colleague who, midway through a strategy meeting, says, “I want to walk back what I said ten minutes ago,” and the room visibly deflates. To everyone else, it signals confusion. To that person’s brain, it signals that something more accurate just became available, and loyalty to the original position would mean ignoring it.

The distinction worth drawing is between belief updating and chronic fence-sitting. Updating is responsive, that is, it moves in reaction to new evidence. Fence-sitting is avoidant, as it moves in reaction to social pressure. One reflects cognitive strength. The other can signal the opposite. But in everyday settings, the two tend to get collapsed into the same frustrated label: unreliable.

Habit 2: Giving Too Much Unnecessary Context

Imagine you ask a simple question to someone and receive a five-minute answer that starts three steps before the point. There are caveats, qualifications, historical background and exceptions to exceptions. The person doesn’t seem to register that you needed a sentence, not a seminar. It can feel patronizing, exhausting or simply socially tone-deaf.

What you are almost certainly witnessing, however, is a well-documented cognitive phenomenon called the Curse of Knowledge — and it correlates directly with genuine expertise and deeper cognitive ability.

The Curse of Knowledge is a cognitive bias that causes the brain to overestimate how much other people understand. When we master an idea, we lose access to the memory of how it felt not to understand it. This creates a blind spot that makes it difficult to empathize with people who don’t share our background. The deeper the knowledge, the harder it is to locate the entry point for someone who doesn’t share it.

Highly intelligent people have often, entirely unconsciously, built elaborate mental scaffolding around a topic over years of thinking about it. When they try to explain it, they dismantle that scaffolding from the top down, which means they start with all the architecture you don’t yet have, rather than with the ground-floor answer you actually asked for.

When experts develop complex mental models for organizing information, the problem in communication arises because those models aren’t shared — the explanation becomes accurate, thorough and, for the listener, completely impenetrable.

To the person on the receiving end, this registers as a failure of social awareness. But it’s a side effect of too much knowledge, not too little. The highly intelligent person isn’t unable to read the room; they genuinely can’t locate where the room is relative to where their own thinking begins.

Think of the researcher who responds to “what do you work on?” with a ten-minute tour of their entire field. Or the engineer who answers “how does this feature work?” by explaining the underlying architecture from first principles. The intention is almost always generosity: a desire to give you the real answer, the full picture, the thing that actually makes sense of it. The social effect, unfortunately, is often the opposite.

It’s worth noting that the Curse of Knowledge doesn’t excuse poor communication — over time, it’s a skill gap worth closing. But understanding its origin matters. The next time someone over-explains to the point of frustration, the more useful question isn’t “why can’t they read the room?” It’s “how much do they actually know about this?” The answer, often, is more than they can easily compress.

How To Work With These Habits — In Yourself Or Others

Neither tendency is automatically a strength. Belief updating becomes a liability when it tips into chronic indecision or performance for its own sake. The Curse of Knowledge becomes genuinely problematic when it consistently shuts down connection or makes people feel talked at rather than talked to.

But both habits share a common origin: a mind that is processing more than the situation has room for. Recognizing that doesn’t mean excusing the friction, it means diagnosing it correctly before reaching for the wrong fix.

If you recognize belief updating in yourself, try naming it explicitly. “I want to revise what I said based on what you just shared” is not a concession. It’s a signal of intellectual confidence. Most people, when they hear it framed that way, respect it.

If you recognize the curse of knowledge in yourself, practice what communication researchers call the “audience-first edit”: before you speak, identify what this specific person already knows, and start there, not from the beginning of your own understanding. The goal is a bridge from their knowledge to yours, not a tour of everything you’ve built.

The habits that frustrate people most are often the ones that, on closer inspection, reflect minds simply working harder than the conversation has space for. That’s not always a flaw to fix. Sometimes, it’s a gap worth closing — on both sides.

If you want to know what your habits say about your particular brand of intelligence, you can take the Cognitive Style Test to know what your thinking style is.