<p>We are all in those AP and honors classes where almost if not everyone feels that they are smarter than the others. I got into an arguement with one of my felloow classmates because she did not get a simple problem correct and so my buddies and I began to laugh. Her immediate reaction was to challenge my smartness/intelligence. She said that she was smarter than me and blah blah. Now all she had to support her claim was that her grades were and are better than mine. Although she has never seen my grades. Now dont get me wrong I am not saying I am better or smarter than her, but where does she get the nerve to make such a statement? who is she, as a matter of fact who are we, as society, to determine who is smarter or more intelligent? what is intelligence or smartness? is it simply numbers and tests? or is it something more than that? In my opinion your intelligence is not determined by how well your numbers are.</p>
<p>Smartness is an abstract standard defined by relativity
To someone with a 135 IQ, someone with a 100 IQ is stupid
To someone with a 170 IQ, some 135 IQ person is stupid
you also can’t judge intelligence on the basis of stupid comments
I make a lot of them.</p>
<p>exactly smartness to most of us has some connection to numbers but that cant be what it is. Smartness can not simply be a number that sets the smart in one circle and the not smart in the other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You and your friends laughed at this girl because this girl did could not solve what you believed to be a basic challenge, implying she was not very smart. The expectation that she would be able to solve it, the ability to solve it is relevant to assessing her intelligence, and that it is acceptable to laugh at her inability to solve the problem is a result of your environment. Society defines intelligence…society defines everything. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Make sure to give your numbers the latest flu vaccine…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not?</p>
<p>
Why not? There’s no logical reason why intelligence can’t be discrete…there’s always fuzzy logic. =)</p>
<p>what is that logic? and yess I was wrong to laugh at her and I understand that</p>
<p>“Smartness” is more than IQ, more than grades and more than SAT’s. These measures don’t effectively show innovation, the drive to learn, or more esoteric areas of specialty (I am a Greenland guru and quite interested in Mongolian throat singing but that didn’t help me in any of the aforementioned things. But had I devoted that time learning about Greenland to say exploring the US government or atomic theory, then according to my GPA I would have more “smartness”). </p>
<p>I think it was wrong of the girl to presume she was more smart than you were. This is not assuming that you ARE smarter than she is, but it is impossible to tell from a bit of brief interaction. She probably said this because she was insecure. But a person’s preformance in one subject, cannot give a complete determination of intelligence. I personally think that “smartness” is something that can’t translate to numbers. There are certainly more intelligent people than others, but it’s like comparing apples and oranges when you’re trying to see if a music prodigy is more intelligent than an award-winning engineer or a Pulitzer Prize winner is more intelligent than a microbiologist who discovered a new strain of the flu. All of these people are leaders in their fields, but all of theme use different sorts of intelligence. </p>
<p>Smartness=(innate ability)+(accumulated knowledge)+(expression of ideas)+(creativity)+(motivation^2)+(openmindedness to new concepts)</p>
<p>IQ is one of the smaller pieces of the pie.</p>
<p>^thank you now that is something that seems more relevant to me</p>
<p>“Smartness” goes beyond grades and taking AP Classes. For example, People say that football players are stupid because they hit each other, blablabla, but they also have to memorize routes, blocking schemes, and plays. </p>
<p>Many people consider “smartness” to be about grades and how well one does in school. However, these people don’t look at the bigger picture. You often only see someone in one environment which is school, so it’s unfair to judge him/her as stupid just by grades. There are too many examples of this for me to name, but I am sure that everyone can think of someone i am talking about.</p>
<p>This sounds like a theory of knowledge question…</p>
<p>This is just like the “what is intelligence” questions.</p>
<p>Read a Psychology book. Then you’ll know various different answers and different tests to determine that intelligence.</p>
<p>Just off the top of my head there is “g” (general, overall intelligence), fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, emotional intelligence, Gardner’s multiple intelligences (naturalistic, musical, mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, etc), analytical intelligence, creative intelligence, and practical intelligence (book smarts).</p>
<p>Let’s stop using the word “smartness.” That’s just poor diction lol. And OP, proper grammar and punctuation for the sake of logical flow wouldn’t hurt. I had to read over sentences a couple of times to figure out what you were saying.</p>
<p>Personally, I consider intelligence to be the holistic sum of a multitude of traits, with some factor multiple based on hard work. Instead of looking at different subject areas as a basis of intellect, I consider very broad aspects such as the abilities to learn new things, to apply knowledge to new situations, and to use knowledge in an original way; i.e., learning capabilities, intellectual analysis, and creativity. I believe that GPA, standardized test scores, and IQ scores are ways, albeit flawed, to determine these aspects of intelligence to a certain degree, relative to those of other human beings.</p>
<p>
You, or more so society, have to define intelligence. Based on that definition, a method of assessment can be devised. You keep saying intelligence “can’t be” this or “can’t be” that, but there’s no law of nature that says it can’t. I didn’t say you were wrong to laugh at her; I was pointing out the connection to society and the topic of your post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh come on…we try to be PC and tell people that everyone has a special talent. There is someone who is more talented–“intelligent,” if you must–in EVERY area than all but a small circle of persons. You’d be amazed at the number of people who can’t communicate, read a book, do precalculus, sing out of a hymnal, use a computer, or function on a basic level. Where’s there “specialness”?</p>
<p>
<3</p>
<p>Sorry about my grammatical mistakes I guess? But anyway if everyone is the determinant of what intelligence is then that is also flawed because all people have different perspectives on what intelligence is.</p>
<p>I do definitely think IQ tests are flawed–the vocabulary section does not test your ability to learn, but the quantity of words you understand. Some people may have less exposure to more esoteric language because they lack a rigorous education. But this doesn’t mean had they been exposed to these words, they’d lack the capacity to understand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Intelligence is abstract; it does not exist outside of a definition. You’re asking what intelligence is, and people are giving you their ideas on what it is and how to measure it. We’ll agree on one or more definitions of intelligence and, to us, that will be “intelligence.” Who can say we’re wrong? People have different perspectives because people view the world in different ways. That is, no one of us view the world as it really exists. Because we cannot know how the world really exists we must agree upon our best guess through our agreed-upon method (e.g. the scientific method).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Using my closest psychology textbook, intelligence is “the ability to learn from experience, solve problems, and use knowledge to adapt to new situations.” It’s a reputable textbook so I’ll accept it’s definition as it likely reflects the generally-agreed-upon definition.</p>
<p>IQ originally started as a measurement between one’s abilities, one’s age, and the normal abilities at a given age. If we use our above definition, what we are in effect doing is trying to assess the “intelligence” of a person in each of what we identify as the “major” fields, and to turn that into a measure of overall intelligence. Because we cannot directly measure intelligence with a ruler, we have to find an assessment that has a strong correlation with intelligence.</p>
<p>I believe that in the test-making process psychologist assume that those who are good at reading will read more higher-level books than their peers. Similarly, those who read these higher-level books are more likely to have a higher verbal intelligence insomuch as they have gained more experience (which I’d call context…one of the above factors of intelligence) and have already applied it to new situations. That is, they took their experience with less complex books and adapted to more complex books, in structure and other elements, yes, but also in word-usage. It is assumed therefore that the more a person reads, the more advanced words he or she come across and is familiar with, i.e. vocabulary. Lastly, the more advanced a person’s vocabulary is, the better prepared they are to comprehend “harder” books.</p>
<p>We can easily think of many different expressions of “verbal intelligence,” but generally we can agree that the higher one’s ability to read and comprehend, the higher his or her “verbal intelligence” level is. Vocabulary is used as a standard not because it reflects intelligence, but because of a correlation between it and verbal intelligence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t say my head isn’t significantly far up its counterpart, but you are typing as if you’re speaking. It’s clear to you because when you read it, it sounds like what you want to say, but it isn’t always clear to us.</p>
<p>I can’t find the specific example I was looking for, but take at look at this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The post before the one I’ve quoted stated that intelligence is relative to difference and that anecdotes do not provide sufficient opportunity to assess intelligence…This doesn’t line up with what you mean, and we really don’t know which idea you’re referring to.</p>
<p>You started your sentence with “exactly.” We don’t see what you’re agreeing with (or possibly just calling attention to) because the previous post doesn’t reflect what you’re saying. After reading both post several times it seems like you used exactly to call attention to the fact that the previous post was exactly what you were referring to and not that you agreed with it. (Not to mention you needed around 4 commas in your first sentence) The very next word, smartness, was another issue someone brought up. Smartness is colloquial; it’s like using sharpness instead of intelligence–it’s poor diction. Finally, you say intelligence can’t be a number, but you don’t provide any reasoning behind this statement (is this possibly contained in the second sentence?). Altogether, after several attempts at comprehension, your first sentence seems to have three parts: </p>
<ol>
<li>The post above yours was exactly what you were talking about; </li>
<li>Most people think intelligence is related to a number; and</li>
<li>Even though most people think that way, intelligence can’t just be a number.</li>
</ol>
<p>The second sentence seems to argue that intelligence can’t just be a number because, if it were, one score would set someone in the “intelligent” group and one point lower would put the person in the “non-intelligent” group. In doing this you mix the ideas of perception of intelligent in a colloquial sense (i.e. Is this person in intelligence or not?) and the idea of measurement of intelligence (i.e. What level of intelligence does this person possess?). I can only guess that this is meant to portray intelligence-testing as a unreliable and imprecise.</p>
<p>Before I get too far off topic I would mention what I meant by fuzzy logic. Consider a person as they age; at what point is he or she “young” or “old”? The idea of fuzzy logic is that as you age the statement that you are young becomes less true, and the the statement that you are old becomes more true. The same could be applied to the idea of intelligence.</p>
<p>So this post isn’t completely off-topic, I would bring up the idea of communication skills as a metric for intelligence. Your ability to communicate is often the basis for day-to-day assessments, particularly those from online persons. Though it’s not fair, people perceive you as less intelligent when you post threads and replies without proofreading it first (either due to emotional-involvement or laziness) because, online, there’s little else to judge you on. By my online diction and tone, you might think I’m an annoying pedant who spends too much time online and is full of himself. I assure you that you’d be completely correct. =)</p>
<p>smartness is being smart in all areas. that includes general knowledge, emotional intelligence, street smarts- everything.</p>
<p>If you’re judging intelligence by artificial mechanisms to begin with, you’re probably a smarta**, not smart.</p>
<p>Once again I shall apologize for my incorrect grammar. It seems as if I am in english class all over again.</p>
<p>You can’t judge smartness across the board, like, set a standard for it but a person can clearly be smarter than another as people have the ability to process information faster than others.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say she’s smarter than you just because of grades or your/her GPA or SAT scores.</p>
<p>All those things can be subject to anything and everything.</p>