Are people who slack off but pull all-nighters and get A's considered smart?

[TheFisher]

<p>If someone could slack off, pull an all nighter and get an A in something like abstract algebra, he’s not dumb, that’s for sure.</p>

[Lima]

<p>

I don’t need to remember usless dates and facts about Picasso. Now, in classes like Biology and Chemistry I study hard and pay attention cause I’ll need those for my career. When I’m interested I put in a lot more effort to retain the material.

</p>

<p>Yeah, but you had the opportunity to learn about art and you shrugged it off? Because you won’t need it for your career? Didn’t you find, for example, how Picasso’s painting style changed so completely because of a few black-market African masks fascinating?</p>

<p>…I guess we’re just really different people. (: (although, for the record, I love bio too.)</p>

<p>EDIT: I really let the silly Romantic in me run loose with this one, huh. Jesus, I wonder what’s next. Maybe I’ll stop swearing and become a girl scout.</p>

[lollybo]

<p>

While I know nothing about psychology and while you definitely have a point, I don’t really agree. Everyone has a learning style, and that’s always different. Bright vs. gifted isn’t about learning styles, though. It’s not really about how a student learns, it’s about the default level of capacity. Let’s put it this way - you can work long and hard to become a master pianist. Then, someday, a seven-year-old will come along and best you. That’s an EXTREME example, but it’s the same basic principle. Are you smart, receptive, hard-working, dedicated, interested? Bright and gifted students are all of those things - but gifted students have something more. I mean, I can follow a recipe to a tee and make a delicious dinner (bright), but my mom can turn the last four items in our pantry into a four course meal for the fifteen members of my family (gifted). Similarly, a bright student can study and ace a test (bright) whereas another student can not study, listen less, employ testing techniques, and still ace the test (gifted). They may both have a linguistic learning style or a kinetic learning style, that doesn’t really matter. What matters is the base they start off with. Some people are gifted with the ability to retain information but some people have to work harder (listen in class vs. study). Some people have to know the material to score well on a test, others only need the basics (content vs. test-taking skills, guessing skills, seeing the finer points).</p>

<p>However, like I said, it’s not necessarily better to be gifted or bright. Especially gifted students have trouble in the school system. Some low-to-moderately gifted students have a poor work ethic. Some bright students don’t apply themselves, and other bright students burn themselves out (especially in my old high school, where there was a clear divide between the bright and the gifted and therefore a lot of stress).

</p>

<p>Intelligence is hard to understand, and almost unquantifiable. My friend performs poorly in a school environment, but has a perfect memory (he remembers everything he has experienced- he could drive across the country without directions, if he has done it before) and is a brilliant writer. I still think the human brain is too complex to split down the middle and put some people with “bright” and some with “gifted.” I think “gifted” is an American phenomenon, in education in Europe and Asia there is no such thing.</p>

[molly4190]

<p>

Yeah, but you had the opportunity to learn about art and you shrugged it off? Because you won’t need it for your career?

It’s about personal preference rather than career. Someone who loves Chemistry might be bored in a required Art class, but work hard in Chem because he likes it. But the class I mentioned isn’t an Art class.

Didn’t you find, for example, how Picasso’s painting style changed so completely because of a few black-market African masks fascinating?

We didn’t learn about Picasso, just memorized some dates for the final exam; it wasn’t an Art class. Completely useless imo. </p>

<p>Honestly, I dislike modern art; I preferred the Baroque, Rococo, and Neo-Classic period. I love going to the Met, but hated the MoMA. When I see a white canvas with a red squiggle in the middle, I just don’t get it </p>

[ronpaul2012]

<p>“When I see a white canvas with a red squiggle in the middle, I just don’t get it”</p>

<p>You need to open your inner eye…</p>

<p>or just smoke a joint…</p>

[molly4190]

<p>^ Hahah yep I love when my professor took us to MoMA and would stand in front of a squiggle and ask us what it meant…the correct answer is obviously some guy spent 10 secs making a squiggle, and laughed all the way to the bank while some idiot paid millions of dollars for it and morons like my professor spent their entire careers analyzing the squiggle and attributing meaning to it. Damn, why am I going to college again? I should’ve gotten in on the modern art movement…:p</p>

<p>Call me a snob, but IMHO…</p>

<p>Art: <a href=“http://farm4.static.■■■■■■■■■■/3165/2613151620_819bb20789.jpg[/url]”>http://farm4.static.■■■■■■■■■■/3165/2613151620_819bb20789.jpg&lt;/a&gt; (my favorite painting <3)
BS: <a href=“http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/upload/2007/06/art1.jpg[/url]”>http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/upload/2007/06/art1.jpg&lt;/a&gt; haha</p>

[ronpaul2012]

<p><a href=“http://www.mammafoo.com/images/Red%20Squiggle/Red%20Squiggle.1208095068.JPG?1211797074[/url]”>http://www.mammafoo.com/images/Red%20Squiggle/Red%20Squiggle.1208095068.JPG?1211797074&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Ah, but each curve, it means something. Like a change in direction from what is known to what is unkown ;)</p>

<p>20 euros? Bullspit, if you ask me…</p>

[ronpaul2012]

<p>Edit: nevermind…</p>

[Vehicle]

<p>Maybe I’m weird but I study because I want to retain the information taught in class regardless if it’s something I’ll never use again. I just like learning, I guess some people only like learning things that are relevant to their lives :x</p>

[ronpaul2012]

<p>^ You’re like me</p>

[molly4190]

<p>

Maybe I’m weird but I study because I want to retain the information taught in class regardless if it’s something I’ll never use again.

It’s pretty impressive if you retain all the information you’re taught. I don’t think memorizing obscure dates and facts is a sign of intelligence; it’s easy to be a sponge and absorb everything. i think intelligence is being able to understand abstract concepts. it hit me how average i am in physics this semester - I study and memorize some things, while others don’t study and naturally grasp the concepts.

I guess some people only like learning things that are relevant to their lives :x

I think people like studying things that are interesting; what’s interesting varies from person to person. Economics and politics are relevant to all our lives, lots of people find 'em boring. Chemistry and astronomy aren’t relevant to my life, but I like those classes.

Ah, but each curve, it means something. Like a change in direction from what is known to what is unkown

haha I love writing these bs types of papers ;)</p>

[rockerguyasj]

<p>IMO, smart people have time management skills.</p>

[Collegehelllp]

<p>Everyone on this site considers themselves geniuses, and I’m not even kidding.</p>

[ronpaul2012]

<p>And everyone is pre-law or pre-med…</p>

[Vehicle]

<p>I don’t retain everything that I learn but I try to retain the vast majority. Concepts are the most important thing to understand because they can be applied to new situations regardless if your knowledge on the subject is limited. Being able to understand and remember key facts both contribute to intelligence. The more information you have, whether it’s memorized facts or knowing the proper operations, the easier it is to figure out a problem.</p>

<p>I can understand being uninterested in learning something. I’m not very interested in Art History, for example, but I try to follow along and remember what I’ve learned because its something I don’t understand about the world. I think it’s better to understand a subject then disregard it completely even if you are disinterested.</p>

[bigwill11205]

<p>IMO, being smart isn’t based on the grades one makes, but the effort one puts in to attempt to make good grades.</p>

[Lima]

<p>

Everyone on this site considers themselves geniuses, and I’m not even kidding.

</p>

<p>…I only get that way when I spend too much time around here. :)</p>

[molly4190]

<p>If i’m not interested, sure I’ll follow along to understand it, but chances are I’ll forget it sooner. Like I took a final yesterday where I had to list a bunch of dates of artwork - I know right now that Picasso did Three Musicians in 1921 off the top of my head. I’ll probably forget that fact within a month, because that’s all it is, a meaningless number. If I actually learned about Picasso’s artwork and ideas, that would be a concept that I could remember for years. But facts without concepts - those are harder to retain. Average people usually have to put in more effort and resort to more memorization rather than understanding (unless it’s the type of test where you regurgitate meaningless facts). This is why I spent days preparing for my Physics final whereas my lab parter probably spent a couple hours - he’s smarter.
<em>edit</em> i agree with bigwill110…dumber people can do just as well with some effort ;)</p>

[ronpaul2012]

<p>“I’ll probably forget that fact within a month, because that’s all it is, a meaningless number”</p>

<p>How dare you!</p>

[applicannot]

<p>

Intelligence is hard to understand, and almost unquantifiable. My friend performs poorly in a school environment, but has a perfect memory (he remembers everything he has experienced- he could drive across the country without directions, if he has done it before) and is a brilliant writer. I still think the human brain is too complex to split down the middle and put some people with “bright” and some with “gifted.” I think “gifted” is an American phenomenon, in education in Europe and Asia there is no such thing.

</p>

<p>Okay. I mean, I don’t take psych or anything. It’s a matter of intelligence, I guess - I think it’s easier to say it’s a matter of intelligence. Your friend is almost certainly gifted. If you read up on especially gifted students, you’ll find that they don’t usually do well in a school environment at all.</p>

<p>I don’t think it’s that it doesn’t “exist” in Europe and Asia, it’s just that it doesn’t matter. Asian and American school systems are very, very different. In Asian countries - and even a lot of European countries - everyone has to work hard to get a good grade, and higher education is usually provided to those with merit (or doled out based on merit). In America, the system is construed. Different students are on different playing fields and the college system is completely different, so it allows for the study of bright vs. gifted. European and Asian educational models neutralize bright vs. gifted, whereas American models can exaggerate it.</p>

<p>It’s kind of like personality types. Yes, there are infinite shades of personality, but it can still be classified fairly simply. The bright vs. gifted is a matter of demeanor. It’s a matter of how that person deals with/retains/employs new knowledge in addition to that person’s personality. An INTJ, for example, is very likely to be slightly to moderately gifted.</p>

<p>

Maybe I’m weird but I study because I want to retain the information taught in class regardless if it’s something I’ll never use again. I just like learning, I guess some people only like learning things that are relevant to their lives :x

</p>

<p>I’m this way too, which is the only reason I know all of this stuff. Every few weeks I go through a phase. When I’m in a phase, I have to learn everything about a given subject that I can (in addition to schoolwork, which I also retain well). For awhile it was genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis/sickle cell/Tay sachs, then it was cryptozoology, then it was the Civil Rights movement, then it was psuedosciences, then it was political issues, then it was feminism, it goes on and on.</p>