It's fairly common to see people talk about intelligence and being smart on this forum. I think being smart or intelligent has several different meanings and the definition of being " smart " is debatable. Some would say it's the ability of coming up with original and innovative ideas, or having good logical and critical thinking skills.

As the title suggests, what do you consider smart? / Define your idea of being intelligent.¨

Edit: maybe I should've put this in the Deep section?

If you can devise effective solutions to complex problems, I consider that to be a sign of intelligence. If you can devise solutions that are novel and unique, I consider that to be a sign of creativity.

Speed of perception.
Speed of comparison, i.e. recognition of similarities.

We are only as smart as the ability to express ourselves.

Therefore, in my opinion, intelligence hinges on vocabulary.

Can she talk about controversial subjects, or ones she doesn't like, or disagrees with you about, without ending the conversation prematurely with one of these words?

• Bigot
• Sexist
• Racist
• Homophobe
• Misogynist
• Other
  

Can she entertain an idea, or why you would think a certain way even if she disagrees?
Can she explain why she thinks a certain way?
Can she change her mind after some discussion on a topic?
Can (& does) she text in proper English, spelling, grammar, and all?

If the question to any one of those is a yes, she's likely not that stupid. Any two and she's likely smart. If yes to all them, pinch yourself. Game as usual.

G

Quote: (01-30-2016 10:20 PM)Windom Earle Wrote:  

We are only as smart as the ability to express ourselves.

Therefore, in my opinion, intelligence hinges on vocabulary.

Could you elaborate more?

When i was like 13 or 14, my Dad told me that genuine humor is the pinnacle of intelligence.

Quote: (01-30-2016 10:20 PM)Windom Earle Wrote:  

We are only as smart as the ability to express ourselves.

Therefore, in my opinion, intelligence hinges on vocabulary.

I don't think this is strictly true.

Example: Man builds car/boat/motorcycle in shed at home with limited budget, basic tools and big ideas.

Man wins world land/water speed record.

Man smart.

The ability to think rationally and make logical decisions.

The ability to make the best decisions.

I've known so many "smart" people who ended up working at walmart doing jack shit, and met so many dumbasses who are working on wallstreet and doing it big.

Knowing a lot of cool facts doesn't make someone smart in my book. Making a lot of cool decisions is really all it comes down to me for intelligence.

Someone who knows when to keep his mouth shut.

Quote: (01-30-2016 11:35 PM)Tex Cruise Wrote:  

Quote: (01-30-2016 10:20 PM)Windom Earle Wrote:  

We are only as smart as the ability to express ourselves.

Therefore, in my opinion, intelligence hinges on vocabulary.

I don't think this is strictly true.

Example: Man builds car/boat/motorcycle in shed at home with limited budget, basic tools and big ideas.

Man wins world land/water speed record.

Man smart.

Based on your example, yes, man is smart, innovative even; but I would say his talent is more a display of skill than anything else, and skills can be learned (to varying degrees).

Would you assume a word class athlete is intelligent based on his freakishly skillful abilities? His forte lies in his advanced agility and intuitive abilities (in respect of reading the play and making decisions on the fly), coupled with his dedication to the craft.

Raw intelligence, that's a different kettle of fish.

Quote: (01-30-2016 11:23 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

Could you elaborate more?

When i was like 13 or 14, my Dad told me that genuine humor is the pinnacle of intelligence.

AtD, think of it in terms of ideas. You may have an incredible idea, but are unsophisticated at expressing it, therefore it comes across as pedestrian at best.

Combine an incredible idea with a fully expressive and persuasive explanation and you are firing on all cylinders.

There's a reason for the phrase "layman's terms", because it appeals to the lowest common denominator by dumbing-down and removing/replacing the words (and therefore important explanatory content) that can potentially be confusing or not understood by the listener. It's like a work of classic literature from another country, poorly translated with the salient points diluted or misinterpreted.

Proficiency in maneuvering the material and metaphysical domains in accordance with one's will.

If everyone you know thinks you're smart, and some of those people are smart, you're smart. After that, it's really just a matter of degrees.

Perceptiveness and the ability to see beneath the surface interaction. Real world life experience that has been learned from. To me academics hiding in their ivory towers will never be truly intelligent.

David Wechsler defined intelligence as the, "The aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment." This succinctly defines our idea of being smart.

I consider someone as smart if they are constantly setting goals, achieving and going about their business quietly (i.e not an arrogant show off). Achieves for himself and aims to impress no one

Quote: (01-31-2016 12:55 AM)Fortis Wrote:  

The ability to make the best decisions.

I've known so many "smart" people who ended up working at walmart doing jack shit, and met so many dumbasses who are working on wallstreet and doing it big.

Knowing a lot of cool facts doesn't make someone smart in my book. Making a lot of cool decisions is really all it comes down to me for intelligence.

So what is it that makes or breaks someone successfull? What quality do you need to be " doing it big ", if not " smarts " or intelligence?

For me smart= doing lots of work to achieve a goal

Intelligent= naturally clever

If I give an example, 2 guys are sitting an exam. One guy revises for like 1 hour a day and gets a great score. The other guy works his ass off and revises 5/6 hours a day. They both smash it and get a great score.

The guy who has revised less is more intelligent (naturally clever and did not have to work hard) but the guy who has put in the effort and graft could be smarter (possibly has more knowledge and is a harder working person than the other guy)

I have a cousin who failed in school but managed to become wealthy growing his fathes business.

I think there are two factors to consider. I consider intelligence to be like mental horsepower. This is raw talent. People with this kind of talent can learn complex math or other hard subjects, beyond the ability of normal people. I know a guy who at 80 years old can still do partial differential equations and other hard engineering math in his head from first principles. He just sees the math behind engineering problems. It's almost intuitive. He had to study it and learn it, but once he learned it, he understood it so clearly that he doesn't have to remember a lot of detailed steps to solve the problems. He just understands it. This is an example of what I mean by raw brainpower.

On the other hand, I think there is a kind of ability to interact with the real world, to see how things work, to control yourself and get work done. Real smartness that is recognized by other people comes when you can harness your brainpower to accomplish real tasks, that are too complex or conceptually difficult for other people to do.

Raw brainpower alone doesn't enable this. A lot of people with high brainpower are dysfunctional, and are probably not widely recognized as smart. Smart people are the ones who can deliver solutions to hard problems.

An IQ above 125, for both men and women, roughly. But then again, listen to any interview with Natalie Portman on Youtube. My ex was obsessed with her after seeing V for Vendetta. Chick does nothing but parrot back liberal propaganda, no original thoughts, and she went to Harvard, which is basically a high IQ club. So with women it's almost different. No wonder so many are actresses - they are great mimics, copiers.

Quote: (01-31-2016 12:29 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

On the other hand, I think there is a kind of ability to interact with the real world, to see how things work, to control yourself and get work done. Real smartness that is recognized by other people comes when you can harness your brainpower to accomplish real tasks, that are too complex or conceptually difficult for other people to do.

Raw brainpower alone doesn't enable this. A lot of people with high brainpower are dysfunctional, and are probably not widely recognized as smart. Smart people are the ones who can deliver solutions to hard problems.

For me, a large chunk of being "smart" comes to down to the ability to get what you want out of life.

I know plenty of people with higher IQs, who went to better schools, got more degrees, and excel at skills (like programming or engineering) that make my head spin.

But I can count on one hand the number of people I know who live the life of their dreams. I just so happen to be one of those people.

I run my own business. I have a sizable pile of fuck-you money in the bank, and a number of investments that should enable me to stop working entirely by ~40 (I'm in my mid-twenties). I wake up every day and do whatever the hell I feel like doing. I'm in the best shape of my life, I have a number of genuine friends from high-quality social circles, and the only time I'm without female companionship is when I choose to be. I fucking love my life, and the problems I do have are "good" problems, like trying to get rid of a stage-5 clinger after taking her virginity.

I could go on, but you get my point. Most of the "smart" people I know are up to their ears in debt, working jobs they hate, married to fat pigs they can't stand, living without any sense of purpose or joie de vivre.

Your average Mensa member might point to my degree from State U, or my SAT score, and claim they're smarter than me. And sure, by objective standards they may be more intelligent. But if you're not living the kind of life you yourself genuinely want to live, how smart can you really be?

It's difficult to qualify 'smart' for any IQ that is significantly higher than yours.

In other words, I have no real insight into the processes (nature) of a 160 IQ mind. Conversely, a 160 IQ mind probably would not consider me to be smart. In other words, 'smart' tends to be a relative term unless measuring using an objective scale such as those used by psychologists.

That being said, my conception of smart is someone who:

1. can quickly and accurately draw analogies that assist in building conceptual models.

Originally, I had listed the above trait as different from 'pattern recognition' as well as predictive 'model building' (I originally listed 3 aspects of 'smart'), but upon further consideration I think that these terms are descriptions of the same process and so I am using 'analogous thinking' to encapsulate all three terms.

I chose this term above the others because it best references the essential verbal nature of the process. Though, 'model building' would arguably better reference the logical process.

The only difference that I can come up with is the function of the model (aka: analogy, aka: pattern recognition) that is built. Sometimes its for its own sake ie: to understand something by recognizing its pattern somewhere else. Sometimes it is to predict probable outcomes and risk.

I suppose that one hypothetical example of a possible departure point between pattern recognition and analogous thinking could be any time you are attempting pattern recognition for rare non-verbal comparisons, perhaps if you were attempting to escape a maze using your memory of a pattern in a different maze. Though, this process would probably be better described as some sort of image comparison and a function of memory than it is pattern recognition in the manner that it is generally used in assessing intelligence.

Aspects of a 'smart' mind that help convey intelligence but aren't really 'intelligence' per se:

1. a better memory greatly helps in giving the impression of intelligence, but it isn't necessary for intelligence; ie: it doesn't affect the processor until it is severely inhibited and you lose your language. Though, it does help in information retention and it does help in vocabulary building that helps analogous thinking.

2. being able to collate and synthesize a large amount of information is a good indicator of intelligence, but I don't think that this skill is intelligence per se. It isn't really a natural intelligence skill as it can be practiced, learned, and improved upon to a degree. It can be directly inhibited by factors that have nothing to do with intelligence such as ADD; and even 'smart' people likely aren't great at it without practice.

Traits that can give a lower sense of a person's intelligence than might be the case: poor memory, poor verbal fluency, and attention deficit disorder / ADHD (inhibits learning processes but not necessarily information processing).

It´s probably just semantics but still it may have merits to think about it. We have the term street smart. It´s about seeing dangers and oppurtunities or patterns quicky.

Intelligence on the other hand seems to be about learning something with time investment. So it´s a slow process.

At zenhabits it is talked about the fast mode and the slow mode of the brain. Slow mode would be about using intelligence and thinking thinks through.

Fast mode would be being smart that is being able to react under pressure.

It´s like the difference between blitz chess and normal chess. Different modes of operating. Switching between these modes needs training.

I always find myself considering others as being intelligent when they are able to express themselves with a fraction of the verbiage that others would use.