<p>My friend does almost nothing but play video games, watch TV, go online and occasionally watch anime. His one hobby is Go, which is sort of like a Japanese Othello. He takes all the hardest classes in school, puts in no effort and gets Cs and Ds, sometimes Fs if he doesn't feel like doing an assignment. He got a 2190 on his SATs, 790/750 on some SAT IIs without studying. He's a good friend of mine, and from discussing things with him I know he's really damn smart. But does he work? Not really. Inherent ability is always a factor that can't be neglected. Hard work is probably more important, but nevertheless, you can't just discount it entirely.</p>
<p>I agree with blendecho; the question is flawed. Clearly your friend there didn't "get" smart anything more than he was born.</p>
<p>To argue is to push forward a point, an objective. To be strictly observational is to be subjective. Proceeding from observation to argument is to derive an objective view from a previously subjective position as it is a transition from the personal to the interactive worlds. Once one leaves the personal world, absolute subjectivity is lost and objectivity must take some (or the entire) role. Therefore, one cannot be entirely both argumentative and subjective, and if so claimed, a contradiction is made (I hope my quickly placed logic is understandable).</p>
<p>Fair Enough!</p>
<p>Perhaps amilkita meant the word "argumentative" in the sense that it may bring forth (or contribute to) heated argument, and not that what was said is objectively cogent.</p>
<p>Well I guess I should explain. What I meant was just what blah1111 described. When I said "Obviously Argumentative, Subjective, and Strictly Observational" I meant argumentative because my words could be challenged by anyone, they are not known facts and I was not quoting or getting my information from any sources. By subjective I meant that my views are based on my experiences in life, therefore someone else coming from a different background and upbringing may very well see it very differently. And by strictly observational I meant that I was basing my views on the topic from just that: my own personal observations, not facts or evidence. Perhaps I should've been more descriptive in that last sentence. I understand how I could've been misunderstood. </p>
<p>Hope this clears it up.</p>
<p>Which makes it partially objective :p</p>
<p>I wasn't laughing at you BTW I was given a little nerdy chuckle at wordplay...</p>
<p>there are two types of smart...genetically engineered intelligence...and those who just work extremely hard...in my experience of those who do paticularly well in school 90% are simply hardworking with mediocore-good natural intellect while the remaning few are simply naturally brilliant...most people who do well in school are academic posers who are simply good at regurgatating what is fed to them with a spoon</p>
<p>jus an example is my little brother who is is going into hs next year and scored an 800math SAT1 score in the 7th grade...god knows he never studys a lick and actually got a a B and a C in 7th grade algebra 1...however he is absolutely brilliant he just doesnt understand the concept of hw because he just doesnt need practice and gets it directly after he is taught</p>
<p>And then there are the students who are naturally brilliant and understand that things like good grades and homework are necessary evils, but are still dedicated to academics outside of mindless schoolwork. That combination usually can't fail.</p>
<p>How about naturally brilliant ppl, who turn themselves into...i dont know..into sms bad, like becoming criminals, or start using drugs like crazy and die by the age of 30?</p>
<p>I'd rather be naturally brilliant, hardworking, and sexy.</p>
<p>well, of course! who would not?</p>
<p>im asking about those ppl, who have ALREADY did sms wrong, terribly wrong
you cant call them naturally brilliant anymore, or... can you?</p>
<p>theres alot of genetics that goes into intelligence, but also the way in which you learn how to think and reason at a young age. basically how ur brain gets wired when you're a baby. my mom gave me workbooks when i was little, and i read alot of sciencey things, like discover magazine, abstract astronomy, quantum physics (helps that princeton's PPPL is just down the road), and now im a very logical thinker. i dont assume much, and so it allows me to have an understanding of every facet of math as its taught (proving stuff in my head as it is stated by teachers) so i have a real grasp of the material taught in a course. if you have a real grasp, the grades will come effortlessly. so for me, i think there was natural ability, but alot of upbringing as well when i was little.</p>
<p>ironically i think ive lost interest in science. i love social analysis.</p>
<p>all the more proving my point! :)</p>
<p>AMILkita! I def agree with you 100%!</p>
<p>Nice to know I have a few supporters. :)</p>