<p>@caitiann
Hmm. From that perspective, someone can be knowledgeable without being smart, or smart without having any real drive for knowledge. I don’t care too much about being “smart” because it’s the knowing and asking that matters to me. People also usually consider someone that is knowledgeable to be smart, and I guess that would also make sense considering that the harder and more consistently you work at something, the better you’re going to get.</p>
<p>If you work hard to find knowledge, you’ll start to acquire that knowledge more easily. Hence you don’t need to be initially smart to acquire it.</p>
It depends on what you mean by “low.” Innate intelligence (a nebulous concept that IQ tests attempt to measure) matters a lot, but most people have similar intelligence levels and can achieve similar things with varying amounts of work. </p>
<p>I don’t think I’m very smart, but I have a pretty good memory. If I glance over something once, I’ll have it thoroughly memorized for a good while. I don’t really worry about it too much though; raw intelligence isn’t really a good indicator of success even in materialistic terms.</p>
<p>Also, I definitely think there’s a difference between being knowledgeable and being smart. Being smart deals with how effectively your brain can synthesize, analyze, and learn information. I know several knowledgeable people who have access to somewhat large arsenals of random information and facts, but are very, very dumb when it comes to analyzing and critical thinking. Would I consider these people smart? Not really…</p>
<p>@CandyPants16
I know what you mean, memorization or basic understanding of concepts is completely different from the ability to apply information.</p>
<p>I use two different words to describe this sort of thing, “Smart” and “intelligent”, and they are somewhat similar to the dictionary definitions.</p>
<p>I think “smartness” is simply the raw amount of information one knows. One can be smart about this or that topic.</p>
<p>Intelligence is one’s capability of understanding, analyzing, and comprehending information. They may not necessarily know a ton about something. Someone can be smart without being intelligent, someone can be intelligent without being smart.</p>
<p>I hold the opinion that natural intelligence is expressed in your reasoning ability, your ability to make connections, and your ability to process information, and I think that natural intelligence is what makes one smart. These are things that IQ tests are looking for.
However, natural intelligence or smarts is not everything, and hard work is always going to be necessary. You can’t just sit on your butt; you need to do something with your intelligence. If you’re intelligent and just laze around and don’t use your brain, it’ll become rusty with disuse.</p>
<p>I think it’s a balance for everyone. The people I know who got into Ivy Leagues and are super successful are really hard workers, and everyone seems to consider them the smartest. People around you aren’t going to notice that you’re smart if you don’t put your natural intelligence to good use. </p>
<p>It really is a subjective definition. One thing I have taken away from my experiences is that what people define as “smart” matters little. My personal definition of smart is all about practicality rather than academics. That definition tends to weigh towards common sense, fast problem solving, practical experience, and organization. So I guess that is my definition of smart.</p>
<p>In the innate v acquired argument, you can’t deny nature has a significant hand, but hard work can do an equally significant amount in most cases. I personally tend to think that the innately smart people are “smarter” (personal bias), but I have great respect for those that work for it because in the end, it is about the combination / balance not one left on its own.</p>