<p>
</p>
<p>Ball’s in your court.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Saying that one person is smarter than another person does not automatically imply that the other person is dumb just as saying one person is more athletic than another does not imply that the other person is not athletic.</p>
<p>Albert Einstein is smarter than me. That doesn’t mean I’m dumb.</p>
<p>Smart is a relative term…what is smart? There are so many definition of smart, intelligent, etc. Athleticism is pretty straightforward as are other qualities, but intelligence is way more subjective. </p>
<p>
Nor can you (and by you I mean general you, not necessarily you, ScienceKid) expect to be completely competent/at the same understanding as others are.</p>
<p>Let’s face it, everyone is “stupid” or bad at something or some subject, and no one is a complete genius at x academic subject. Even Einstein didn’t know everything. Again, smart is a subjective term that is an opinionated term, really.</p>
<p>I mean if a person does his/her best in the lower class, then that’s to the extent of his/her ability, and I respect that (hell, I’m a huge slacker). But most of the time the people in the on-level classes act like total ■■■■■■■ (for example, the sophomores in my Chinese class play the “male genitalia” game and p*** off the kid with anger management issues). That to me is complete stupidity.</p>
<p>@Hal</p>
<p>Exactly. It’s these various factors, and more that have to be taken into consideration before judging someone just because of the courses they take.</p>
<p>No, I don’t think that way.</p>
<p>There’s actually kids I know in lower level classes who are much smarter than those in the higher level ones. A pity they don’t feel like joining those classes. The reason they don’t join is because they dislike the “greater than thou” attitude many of the students in higher level classes have.</p>
<p>@CE5
Lol! I know exactly what you mean too. It’s like when I took social studies- I was terrible in it ( Don’t even ask for the grade, lol) There were other people who were better than me at it, and I acknowledged them. This doesn’t imply that for those who weren’t that I didn’t acknowledge them, no, I know everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and mine just isn’t History.</p>
<p>I’ll grant that’s it’s harder to distinguish between people of the same relative intelligence as compared to distinguishing between people of the same relative athletic ability (40 time, bench press, etc.). However, it is easier to tell whether someone is a genius or an idiot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My friend is really good at Math and Science, he’s okay in History, but he’s terrible at English. I’m good at English and History (and somewhat good at Science), but I suck in Math. We both know each other’s strengths and weaknesses, and in the end it all balances out, so neither of us is really smarter than the other (although he likes to joke about how he’s the smartest in the world).</p>
<p>@Repede…Well yeah, but there are multiple “levels” of intelligence between genius and idiot, so what about distinguishing between those? Also, there are different types of intelligence as far as various academic subjects and then more of vocational subjects.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since when? If it were neutral we wouldn’t be so hesitant to say, “Tom is smarter than Jack.” </p>
<p>(And I really should have used “non-smart” in my original post, because I was trying to argue that “non-smart” isn’t the same as “dumb.” But most people do seem to equate them.)</p>
<p>“Athletic” isn’t the opposite of “morbidly obese” (I guess sumo wresting is a sport), and tone deafness isn’t viewed as badly as non-smartness is. </p>
<p>(I think this might be because music performance isn’t required to be part of everyone’s life, but academics are. Everyone is expected to be somewhat proficient academically…the same isn’t true in other areas.)</p>
<p>We need more specific terms to use (notice how people on this thread are working with several different definitions of “smart”). “Academically inept” isn’t the same as “lacking common sense,” but both people could be described as dumb because they have trouble figuring things out in some area of life. (Maybe there are multiple unintelligences, but we should indicate that rather than just using a blanket term. Same with “smart.” It’s nonspecific, and it doesn’t have much meaning because in my experience a lot of people aren’t okay with not being smart.)</p>
<p>Think about basic skills required in each subject.</p>
<p>English - Analytical, Comprehension
Math - Computing
Science - Computing, Comprehension
History - Memorization, Comprehension</p>
<p>Not 100% accurate, you can edit as you like.</p>
<p>Smart for me would be people who naturally excel in these basic areas (there are more than I listed). You may be good at history, but it’s probably a combination of natural skill, hard work, and enjoyment. </p>
<p>There are smart people who don’t excel because they have natural skill, but not hard work, or enjoyment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Every standard deviation in IQ should be noticeable.</p>
<p>English - Analytical, Comprehension
Math - Analytical, Computing
Science - Computing, Comprehension
History - Memorization, Comprehension</p>
<p>(Computation loses importance once you get out of high school math.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They should do a study on this. It would be interesting.</p>
<p>@Repede I can’t speak for people in general, but I am more hesitant to say “Tom is smarter than Jack” because I know I could very well be DEAD wrong. A lot of thing cause higher grades/harder course loads. External pressure, financial stability, home life, mental instability (depression, test anxiety etc) are a few examples.</p>
<p>My class of three hundred seems divided.</p>
<p>About ten to fifteen kids are ‘elite’. Every year my public high school in a small city sends a few to the Ivy League or other top schools.</p>
<p>About 150 are the kids who are average with no honors, AP, or GPAs above a 3.5.</p>
<p>About equally, the remaining kids go slightly above or below the ‘average’ class.</p>
<p>Are the elite kids smarter. Yes. I’d say so. The constantly pursue learning, do well in classes, and learn outside of class. They come in early and stay late. They prepare themselves for a bright future. And that IS smarter than never doing your homework, sleeping in class, and not pushing yourself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But why would it be a big deal if you were wrong? Would it be worse than being wrong about, say, athletic ability?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel like saying average intelligence is neutral is a pretty safe assumption.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay. Out of shape. You’re missing the point. Tone deafness is viewed as badly in the musical world as being dumb is in academia as being out of shape is in sports.</p>
<p>just curious, but what actually constitutes “average” intelligence, or any category of intelligence for that matter? Like two people could both have an IQ of 100 (average), but one could make significantly better grades, awards, higher artistic/musical ability, etc. etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not talking about intelligence as defined by success in school.</p>