The ability to describe a language with useful and concise rules make a language easier to understand and learn. I think this serves as a perfectly reasonable metric for how "crazy" or consistent a natural language is. What other definition of consistency would matter to anyone?
And a few nits, because I'm personally sick of others coming up with their own contrived definitions of intelligence. All of which, unsurprisingly of course, also claim to be hyper intelligent. I wouldn't expect to have to explain any of the following to a polymath.
- The ability to consume information (or the accumulated volume of information), even with perfect recall, is by no means a direct measure of intelligence -- large performant databases of useful information are by no means intelligent. And it's clear that you at least partially believe this, given your comments on the ability for others to "catch up". As if intelligence is something that can be measured linearaly to begin with (though, of course we try to approximate it). Does the path to catching up have to be linear wrt. time, or even continuous? No. The simplest counter-example being, maybe you've been reading garbage.
- 3rd gear gives higher velocity than 1st gear, and the RPMs can be redlined in either case. Or maybe the measure is the potential of acceleration from stop, I don't know, but either way, this doesn't make sense. As a polymath I suppose your knowledge of transmissions must be a bit lacking.
- I don't think people generally have a problem believing that people "like you" (polymaths) exist. It's more likely that people have a problem with you specifically claiming to be a polymath.
- You must have repeatedly attempted to convey this belief of yourself. In this post, for one, but, moreso to the point of being _sick_ of people not believing people "like you" exist.
Produce useful work, and nobody cares about whether you played by the rules of society.
If you cannot effectively convey information to others, then, I'm not sure you are a polymath. This skill is the same skill that you should already be using to consume and comprehend information to begin with, so it should be second nature to you.
And, go ahead and go through life thinking "I am a polymath, but, I feel no need to prove it either directly or indirectly through the work that I do." If that's the path that you take, then, enjoy being completely indiscernible from everyone else, and thus effectively lying to yourself to feel special. Because you can not even trust your own perception of yourself except through the work that you do -- this is the litmus test that avoids large swaths of cognitive bias if you can pass it.
You need to produce work that others can evaluate to earn you the title of "polymath" -- otherwise you are not.
It's too easy to self-proclaim titles, and to others, naturally, entertaining statements like these are a waste of time.
All that anyone can gain from your comment are the claims that you consume a lot of information, and that you can recall said information. And that you're good at math despite others not knowing it. But, that says nothing about the ability to use said information usefully. Maybe another person consumes 10% of the total information that you do, but, they select this information more carefully, and can produce insights more effectively than you. This is at least in part the difference between fluid and crystalized intelligence.
Maybe a person that consumes 10% of the information that you do is in fact a polymath, but you are not.
Not that I really care to prove that you specifically are or are not a polymath, because, the designation is meaningless, anyway. This designation never meant anything to those that society has retroactively identified as polymaths, either.