<p>I didn’t say you were being racist. I was saying it would be good to avoid debating it from that standpoint, as it goes downhill quickly.</p>
<p>That being said, one could easily argue your post was racist if they so wished.</p>
<p>Thank you very much for completely failing to comprehend my post.</p>
<p>
None of this is true except for the hair part (temporarily). A+ for colorful imagination, though.
Because the truth is drastically different from what you originally said and then repeated.
It is merciful for me to say that you have been ■■■■■■■■ rather than displaying your true intelligence.</p>
<p>
Eloquently phrased. I share the same perspective, in this case. I’d put intelligence in quotations, though.</p>
<p>I think I just found it.</p>
<p>Asian way (one girl told this):</p>
<p>“You’ve to see something other than a person’s grades, “smartness” to see the real one. for example, one’s SAT score”</p>
<p>help me.</p>
<p>What makes someone smart? Depends on your definition of “smart.”</p>
<p>Stereotypes develop out of things that are usually generally true, but as we were all told at some point or another, everyone is different, so while the stereotype that Asians are smart is generally true (in MY personal experience at least), it doesn’t hold true for every Asian. There are, of course, also stereotypes that usually aren’t true. But I digress.</p>
<p>Who cares?</p>
<p>Repede makes a good point.</p>
<p>In my opinion, being smart means having a lot of intelligence. I also feel that intelligence is the opposite of stupidity. I consider someone stupid if they aren’t able to learn and apply new information. So therefore, being smart means being able to learn and apply new information at an accelerated pace in comparison to the average person.</p>
<p>I’m realizing that my definition makes it so you can be smart in one field, but stupid in another. So for someone to be smart overall, they would have to be smart in a variety of fields. That doesn’t mean they have to like a variety of fields, or even be knowledgeable about them. They simply have to be able to learn about and apply their new found knowledge faster than an average person would be able to. </p>
<p>This also doesn’t take into account things such as demeanor, personality, dress, etc. Frankly, I find them irrelevant in deciding whether someone is truly smart. Obviously these are the best ways we can judge someone’s intelligence without actually knowing them, so that’s why I think people think of them as things directly related to smartness. Yet in my opinion most of them either rely on stereotypes or on the judged person possessing a certain amount of knowledge. I believe that someone can be both ignorant and smart simultaneously in regards to the same field. Someone can not know a lot about mathematics, but given the chance could find the subject as a whole incredibly easy to grasp.</p>
<p>Edit: This post feels really long. :P</p>