Who is really the smartest with words?

 Linguistic intelligence isn't expressed solely by an extensive and conventionally impeccable vocabulary, if that's a matter of conventional aesthetics. Nor is it expressed solely by the ease of learning new languages, which, despite its many advantages, isn't the most important (it's worth noting that an extensive vocabulary in one's native language tends to be related to this same ease). Because the most important aspects of human language, as with any other communication system developed and used by any other species, are the ability to communicate (both in the sense of transmitting information and understanding what is being transmitted when one is in the position of listener or receiver), and to maximize one's understanding of lived and achievable reality, only possible through this process of association between symbol and information. Therefore, the most intelligent person, in essential linguistic terms, is the one who best uses a communication system, in a more objective sense (a priori, independent of the ability of others to understand it), since even individuals endowed with a broader and more sophisticated vocabulary can still use language in a non-ideal way and, in fact, it seems that they are more likely to do so, not as a means for objective or effective communication and factual understanding, but to prioritize aesthetic or artistic purposes, more personal or social, including believing the opposite of what they are doing, when they are, in fact, using their verbal capacities for these same purposes mentioned, neglecting the two most important functions of language. This may help explain the possible or apparent correlation between having a more extensive vocabulary and being more likely to believe in and delve into pseudosciences, especially those linked to the humanities, perhaps as a side effect of placing too much emphasis on aesthetics rather than the essence of language. These pseudosciences are often constructed precisely based on the aesthetic illusion of a superficial and excessive refinement of the use of words, masking their intrinsic nature as a falsification of legitimate knowledge. But it's also important to emphasize that a deficiency in rational capacity isn't just a cognitive deficiency, since non-cognitive aspects, such as personality, also influence how we think and interpret the world. However, this contradiction, which seems common among those who master the use of words but not their most important application, remains interesting. It must be because they are, on average or disproportionately, more skilled in the aesthetic use of the word, and not in its more functional or direct sense, commented on here, of communication and factual (or philosophical-scientific) understanding, mediated by self-knowledge (true/possible and specific capacity for understanding).