The outside view is very good to apply, especially in this case where there hasn't been much independent validation and lots of opportunity for confirmation bias. However, I would and do generally trust the assessment someone else makes about the intelligence of someone else. (With the exception of any assessments based on politics or tribe affiliation.) I guess I agree with the OP that intelligence is fairly straightforward to estimate with secondary signals.
I'm not familiar with any charlatans or scammers being successful by pretending to be smarter than they were. People pretending to be smarter than they are, are usually pretty transparent. I suspect this is just availability bias, though, do you have any examples in mind?
I'm not familiar with any charlatans or scammers being successful by pretending to be smarter than they were. People pretending to be smarter than they are, are usually pretty transparent.
They are if you're smarter then they really are.
I suspect this is just availability bias, though, do you have any examples in mind?
Well, there's Yvain's tale of how he was almost convinced by Velikovsky's pseudohistory.
I've never heard of anyone saying "I thought that person was really intelligent, but they turned out not to be", and when there are scandals about people with fake credentials, they don't seem to come from people with fake credentials making mistakes-- instead, someone checks the history.
It seems to me that you can find out a lot about people's intelligence by talking with them a little, though I've underestimated people who were bright enough but didn't present as intellectual.
The real problems are with identifying conscientiousness, benevolence, and loyalty-- that's where the unpleasant surprises show up.