<p>I know some stories sound frustrating or dissapointing, but I know there are people out there who put 125% of the effort in and still can’t get into top colleges in the rankings.</p>
<p>I just feel special sometimes when I hear this because I don’t want to be like them. This is an example of something less than intellectuality that’s used to get in. Gosh, I hope I’m someone who can use hard work to help me get there.</p>
<p><2) If the two people were going to participate in a pre-arranged martial arts competition, Person B’s injury should exclude him, fairness aside. ></p>
<p>Dude, person A challenged him to a match KNOWING his leg is broken AND that person B can’t run away because his leg is completely F… Yeah, that’s the situation I was describing, an unfair situation.</p>
<p>Life is unfair. If you aren’t born with the ability to comprehend as much material in academics as you want, too bad. I do respect hardworking people, but life is unfair. It’s not like we can make the people whose potential is just too low reach a higher potential. No, the only way is to limit the potential of those who can do great things. I sympathize with your feelings, but not everyone can be Michael Jordan or Albert Einstein just because they wish it to be. I think we should make sure everyone gets equal opportunities, but trying to make life perfectly “fair” would be unfair to those who can do great things. It would limit freedom. Unless we all wanted to becomes clones of each other in a communist society, that would be fair. Ideological reasons aside, that doesn’t seem to be feasible right now.</p>
<p>And if i hit you with a baseball bat it wouldn’t be a nice thing.</p>
<p>= poor analogy to life</p>
<p>We’re all equally balanced. Some just have a large percentage of their strength in academics. </p>
<p>Either that or they just have a natural passion for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pleasantness and factuality are two different things. Your thought is pleasant but untrue.</p>
<p>Yo, this thread is becoming more and more like a philosophical discussion.</p>
<p>Maybe we should go visit H.G. Wells’ grave and hope that his ghost will show up so that we can ask to see if he can let us borrow his freakin’ time machine. If he says yes, we can go back in time and ask Socrates/Plato/Aristole/Name-Famous-Philosopher about this topic. Lol… J/k.</p>
<p>A lot of my classmates really don’t care about what they learn. They forget half the material in a short period of time and then struggle trying to relearn it before tests.
I retain a lot more, partly because I’m interested and partly because I have no life.</p>
<p>I don’t study nowadays but I guess I “studied” a lot as a little kid.
As in, I’d look up word origins in the dictionary and stuff. My favorite books in the house were the encyclopedias. I might have been a creepy little nerd, but it paid off in the end.
Because now, as a high school senior, I am better at absorbing and digesting information than 60% of my classmates will ever be. Muahahaha.</p>
<p>“Pleasantness and factuality are two different things. Your thought is pleasant but untrue.”</p>
<p>unfortunately, i second this.</p>
<p>Ehh…let’s just ignore my unintelligent post, shall we? :)</p>
<p>Anyway, I was in no way attempting to slander anyone’s intelligence. I reluctantly suppose that the things about natural intelligence here is mostly true.</p>
<p>My only complaint with this otherwise brilliantly philosophical and productively thoughtful thread was that the general posters’ attitude seemed to be unnecessarily scornful towards those who achieved their levels on a ratio of hard work:giftedness that exceeded yours. That’s all…I realize you guys aren’t trying to brag lol.</p>
<p>I really don’t know how to tell how “naturally smart” someone is. Ehh…does it matter that much still lol? In school, the only way to tell natural aptitude from hard work (which is sooooo shameful, right lol?) is to observe which kids absorb COMPLETELY new material first and the best.</p>
<p>But today, there’s other places to get these materials. There’s the Internet. There’s early tutoring from parents. There’s resources. The Internet. Interests can expand “abilities” in a subject, as earlier so eloquently put. Like I actually consider myself to be quite slow compared to my wittier and faster-learning classmates, but due to the Internet lol, my evil Asian mom, and my interests, I can stay academically ahead of them comfortably.</p>
<p>(shrugs)</p>
<p>I just want to throw this out there:
natural intelligence does not equal good grades. I have a friend who is absolutely brilliant, but doesn’t put too much effort into school, and you wouldn’t think him to be so brilliant. </p>
<p>also, hard work does not equal good grades. I think that those who get good grades have the good habit of listening, and remembering material heard during class discussion. This can be either through a great memory, or by active participation in the class. I have taken tests in a subject I find interesting, without studying, and received good scores. On the other hand, I’ve studied for hours for some tests, and still received low grades (most likely because I wasn’t so interested during class time).</p>
<p>I would agree with some of the points random said. There’s nothing wrong for someone achieving greatness because of hard work, and neither is there for someone who does it with less work and more natural ability.</p>
<p>if you don’t study now it’s usually because you put in the work before</p>
<p>me, i am uber good at math. do i study? no. but i did have parents who crammed algebra down my throat at age 5.</p>
<p>Has anyone read Outliers or Talent is Overrated ? Both books talk about people “grinding” through HOURS and HOURS of nothing but “deliberate practice” which involves extraordinary effort. </p>
<p>I believe intelligence is the same thing. You are born the way you are–but you are also able to do a near limitless number of jobs/activities/actions, however, people tend to stick to 1-3 things they really like. To get to such a high level requires lots of effort and time. If there was some innate abilities type gene, then why not just have a genetic test and assign people to those roles?</p>
<p>Because genetics is a relatively new and undeveloped science.</p>
<p>I think intelligence can be seen in far more than just grades. The way someone acts/carries themselves, their humor, musical abilities ect</p>
<p>In my current classes, I don’t study at all. I pay attention and do assigned work and it seems to be enough the grant me A’s in each of my classes. I think this is also attributed to my memorization skills/techniques right before class too. :)</p>
<p><the way=“” someone=“” acts=“” carries=“” themselves=“”></the></p>
<p>So if someone in top 10% of his class at Harvard likes to act like an idiot and bounces around like a 10 year old his talking like “Yo, dude, wassup man I ain’t got no freakin’ socks, yo!” he has low intelligence? Seriously, using the way someone act isn’t accurate.</p>
<p>well there’s a difference between being street smart and book smart. As great as intellecutual intelligence is, social skills are just as important.</p>
<p>Yeah, and if you’re good at golf you might become a billionaire.</p>
<p></p>