<p>Simple question. Some people consider people to be smart based on their education. Others base it on other factors. Is it possible to be smart a smart person without having any school smarts? I thought this would be interesting. Thoughts?</p>
<p>You know it when you see it.</p>
<p>Many people would probably disagree with me, but I consider “smart” in the context of natural intelligence. For example, in my opinion, a total slacker who manages to get a 2100 SAT is smarter than an overachiever who studies 6hrs a day and gets a 2400.</p>
<p>Typically, I consider anything I do “smart”. For instance, I’m an intelligent sleeper.</p>
<p>A person with common sense, who can hold an intellectual conversation, always comes up with great solutions to everyday problems. Everyone has a different point on whats smart. </p>
<p>A person who excels at school is not someone I consider smart. Many people didn’t go to school, but that does not mean they lack intellectualism.</p>
<p>All adjectives are relative, so anyone that has a higher UW GPA than me and took the same or more challenging class, and have a social life</p>
<p>Having a social life does not have anything to do with being smart IMO.</p>
<p>
Ah, but is it smarter to slack, or to apply yourself and achieve greater results?</p>
<p>Slack + achieve greater results obviously. Best of both worlds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. A person who slacks is not smart because of the very fact that they slack off, which isn’t a smart thing to do. However, if one can get a 2400 with no studying vs. one who studies 6 hours a day for a year to get the 2400, the one who didn’t study is smarter. However, if he got a 2390 he would not be smarter, for the simple fact that he could have studied a bit and got the 2400. If he can achieve the maximum with no work, he is smarter, but if he needs some work to achieve this, he would be smart to do that work and not smart if he did not do it.</p>
<p>This post is very wordy and has terrible English. Sorry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who are you to say? :p</p>
<p>“Smart” is obviously too subjective to define. In addition to this, attempting to quantify the unquantifiable will always fail.</p>
<p>Slacking is completely unrelated to intelligence. Either someone has self-discipline or they don’t. I have to agree with the whole “natural intelligence” thing though. I have more respect for people that work harder, but as far as who I consider smarter, it’s the one who doesn’t have to try as hard for an equally strong result.</p>
<p>You guys are confusing genius and smart.</p>
<p>Smart: Has great memory.
Genius: Has great creativity.</p>
<p>I concur with cobftw</p>
<p>
Right, because geniuses aren’t smart. /sarcasm</p>
<p>Genius’ have higher levels of working memory, while nerds/smart people just have a higher memory. </p>
<p>So genius’ can solve problems better, score high on IQ tests, and logically solve things easier, while smart people/nerds just memorize vast amounts of information without much effort as opposed to their counterparts.</p>
<p>Smart: picks up / learns new material easily, as in, can be taught.
Genius: figures out new material on their own, as in, teaching themselves.</p>
<p>A genius is someone who has knowledge from education as well as from a wide variety of experiences, in my perspective</p>
<p>A genius is obviously someone who likes to define the word genius in a way that includes their idea of their own self.</p>