definition of being smart

[strangeguy]

how do we INTPs classify people as smart.
Are those people that have high grades really smart?
For me, i will sort of analyse them, run 'tests' on them
before balancing the factors and then deciding whether they are smart or not?

 

[Ermine]

I'm not sure. I don't think the current tests out there are a good way of measuring intelligence. Also, smart is a subjective term. In comparison to a lot of my classmates, I'm really smart. In comparison to some of the people on this forum, I'm nothing exceptional.

 

[Oblivious]

Intelligence is acute awareness of one's boundless stupidity.

 

[Olba]

Well, for one, the classical intelligence tests mean nothing. They only test certain fields on "intelligence" and their original purpose was to come up with a good age for kids to start going to school.

For example, they don't measure many of the intelligences in Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. Actually, most of them are impossible to measure. How can you measure bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, for example? Or musical intelligence?

In my opinion, those who do well in intelligence tests are the kind of people who know how to do a test. In my case, my performance goes down especially when I'm under a strict deadline, such as in tests. I end up focusing more on time efficiency than accuracy of the answers. Well, this is the case in subjects that I don't do so well in, such as mathematics and physics. In the subjects that I do well in, that is English, Psychology, Religion, Philosophy and Literature, I don't even look at the clock and usually finish way before the time is up. With good scores, as well.

As for people who really do that well in tests. Doing well in tests doesn't mean anything. This is clearly shown by the fact that most people around 14 years of age cram for their tests by reading all of the text over and over again. Even if they do well in a test, it doesn't measure whether they've understood everything. It will then only measure how well they remember what they read. Which isn't what tests should be for.

Of course, there are always teachers who know this and therefore don't give grades based on only the facts and correctness of the written answers, but also based on evidence that the student has understood the topic. If they understood it, they will have examples and their way of explaining the topic will differ from the way it was presented in the text book.

Personally, I don't view people who do well in tests or get good grades as being smart or intelligent. The grade number alone doesn't tell me anything, as there are always at least two possibilities as to why they have that kind of a grade. Therefore, if I'm interested, I'll strike a casual conversation on the topic and see how well they answer. That is, how natural their answers are and how fast they come up with them.

Also, I don't like people who make a huge deal out of grades or test scores. For example, in my case, I've noticed that I get the best test results when I do my test in the afternoon. That is, I've done tests in the night, in the evening and in the morning. And none of those scores come close to the score I had when I did my test in the afternoon. This is especially easy for me to compare since I've done the same maths test around 23:00-2:30, 8:00-11:00 and 14:00-17:00. The result? 7/36, ~18/36 and 22.5/24, respectively. As you can see, the difference in the scores is huge. One of them is a failing grade, the other is an average one and the last one is a top-notch one. And yes, the test was from the same field, logarithms.

Smart is a funny word. It differs slightly from "intelligent", yet it doesn't equal "wise". Somehow, "smart" gives me an image of an activity of some kind. With it's obvious relation to "intelligent", maybe I could say that being smart is applying intelligence to every day activities?

 

[Wisp]

It's intelligence, but generalized.

Also, some people think very well, but not quickly (particularly S types) so judging speed at which an answer is given isn't good. Also, introverts tend to pause before speaking.

 

[Radioactive_Springtime]

i think im smart but i say a hella lot of dumb things

 

[murkrow]

I've recently begun to think that I am not even close to as intelligent as I thought.

In D&D terms I'd say I have an intelligence score of 11 or 12.

and being 10-20% more intelligent than the average person isn't really much.

However I'm judging intelligence entirely on raw computing/learning ability. Given enough time any clear thinking person of reasonable intelligence will come to the same answer as one of greater intelligence. That is of course if you share my understanding of intelligence.

I realize now that I deal with my lack of intelligence by always being right. The debate of an accurate point is far more forgiving than that of an inaccurate one.

 

[Vulture]

However I'm judging intelligence entirely on raw computing/learning ability. Given enough time any clear thinking person of reasonable intelligence will come to the same answer as one of greater intelligence.

Insight comes with intelligence. Learning abilities and computing skills come from pattern recognition, and an understanding of differences. So an intelligent person not only comes to proper answers more quickly, but also has ''his eyes'' open to notions and concepts that would ellude another.

 

[Frosty]

I agree with Olba ... my suggestion is that there are many possible categories of intelligence, such as musical, logical, mathematical, social, linguistic, emotional, etc ... and the IQ tests I have seen ignore most of those categories.

 

[Olba]

I agree with Olba ... my suggestion is that there are many possible categories of intelligence, such as musical, logical, mathematical, social, linguistic, emotional, etc ... and the IQ tests I have seen ignore most of those categories.

Well, Howard Gardner made a theory about multiple intelligences. The ones that he included were bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, naturalistic, intrapersonal, spatial and musical.

As you can see, some of them can be measured, but even then huge inaccuracies are present. For example, if you measured logical-mathematical intelligence by seeing how fast and how accurately they answer logical problems or mathematical equations, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are better in that area, it could just be that they are used to it.

And then there are those categories that are simply impossible to measure, such as bodily-kinesthetic and musical intelligence.

 

[Aphasia]

Defining levels of intelligence on individuals is somewhat tricky. For example, I've got friends who read and write four or more languages well (compared to myself, good in one, competent in another and illiterate in the other one) who do poorly in examinations. Mostly, I see people as each having their own set of skills in which they are good at instead of lumping them under the genius subset.

@Olba: I agree on your disagreements.

 

[murkrow]

I have an IQ of 131 (USA)

so I guess I am sort of smart and I just don't apply myself.

which is the opposite of what I thought...

so I must not be very smart.

 

[CowSavior]

I usually base peoples intelligence greatly on their ability/ drive to learn.

This is actually really hard for me to explain... >:-(

 

[Olba]

I usually base peoples intelligence greatly on their ability/ drive to learn.

This is actually really hard for me to explain... >:-(

And where exactly is the borderline between on learning ability and a good memory?

For example, there're people who could list the first 200 decimals of the golden ratio for you. Does this mean that they also learn stuff better than others?

Or how about someone who understands the general principle behind ideas but has a hard time remember the exact details, such as who came up with it and when was it first publiced?

And your definition of "intelligence" is restricted a lot by the time that it is applied. For example, people who have been in the field of linguistics for a long time are bound to know most if not all of the grammar by heart and therefore the only thing they can "learn" are single words. However, learning single words is very insignificant. Surely you cannot claim that these people, who just might be professionals in the field, don't possess some sort of intelligence in the field of linguistics, right?

Therefore, your definition is greatly flawed by the fact that learning has diminishing returns after a point that varies depending on the field of knowledge.

 

[Dissident]

I dont know the subtlety of english words, what is the difference between smart and cunning or clever for example?
I would find more interesting to talk about what is to be wise or lateral thinking

 

[Frosty]

I dont know the subtlety of english words, what is the difference between smart and cunning or clever for example?
I would find more interesting to talk about what is to be wise or lateral thinking

For me:
"smart" approximates to "intelligent" (raw intellectual processing power)
"cunning" intimates that the person might find solutions that could be slightly devious (a hint of moral ambiguity perhaps?)
"clever" indicates that the person is likely to find non-obvious solutions (perhaps a bit of "lateral thinking" in here?)

"wise" is good ... intelligence enhanced/tempered by experience.

 

[Linsejko]

or wise is intelligent intelligence.

I think the idea of 'different intelligences' is a bunch of poppy cock that is trying to say that 'everyone is special in their own way'.

Intelligence =/= gifted. Just because you're good at football and suck at math comprehension doesn't mean we should rename your gift as a kind of intelligence. You're athletic, and you're stupid. Suck it up. If you're athletic enough, make millions in the NFL. If you get math that well, start a new software company and make millions there. No reason to start diluting a perfectly good word without reason.

Intelligence is ability to comprehend, imho. Intelligent people can simply understand deeper and deeper levels of logical construction. I do kind of assume intelligence includes an ability to grasp abstract concepts, as well, but this may not be entirely fair; jury is still out on that one.

.L

 

[Jesin]

I think the idea of 'different intelligences' is a bunch of poppy cock that is trying to say that 'everyone is special in their own way'.

Maybe if you think about it this way: Doing well in social situations takes certain types of intelligence, and doing well in pure mathematics and algorithmic analysis takes different types. Although there is overlap, you can't argue that there's no difference.

Really, there are lots of different things that make up "intelligence", and it's silly to think it can be lumped together all in one trait. Different tasks can take different types of mental skills.

 

[Linsejko]

Maybe if you think about it this way: Doing well in social situations takes certain types of intelligence, and doing well in pure mathematics and algorithmic analysis takes different types. Although there is overlap, you can't argue that there's no difference.

Really, there are lots of different things that make up "intelligence", and it's silly to think it can be lumped together all in one trait. Different tasks can take different types of mental skills.

Rather, I find they are all different manifestations of the same thing, the same singular 'intelligence'. Different people apply this intelligence in different ways. Sometimes people have a specific block that prevents them from applying their intelligence in a certain area (childhood issues, et al).

Yo.

.L

 

[mm1991]

Some of the dumbest people I have ever met have had college degrees.
So, I really don't base it on the educational system or any formal tests.

 

[Radioactive_Springtime]

didn't we all really deep down know all this from the start?

 

[salvage]

My experience has shown me that IQ scores, SAT's, etc. don't convey shit about intelligence. My general definition of intelligence is about perceptual clarity. I think it revolves around having a certain penetrating ability, a way of seeing the subtleties of what is really going on in reality and being able to analyze them abstractly (without going into a black hole). Sure, certain tests measure very specific subsets of "intelligence," but they are, on the whole, pointless imo. I feel that intelligence is something that can only be understood truly through observation (of others and self); anything else is a fabrication, in one way or another.

 

[Quest for Liberty]

this thread is not aimed at intelligence, it is aimed at the definition of being smart... funny how everyone automatically made these words identical...

I think that a smart person is someone who gets good grades. they are smart to know what the teacher wants. My problem in school was never lack of vocabulary, or poor delivery, it was always that I could not write essays, etc. about things that I didn't care about. I think that intelligence is the ability to find solutions that haven't been thought of yet. so, it is going out on an intelectual limb and coming up with new solutions.

to be smart, you just have to obey. just think, when you were in middle school, you could have been the smartest person in the class, it just means good grades, but how could you say someone was the most intelligent? it just isn't usually said, the reason I believe is because intelligence only deals with extraordinary, if you have an intelligent idea, it is an idea that no one has thought of yet, and thus hopefully extra ordinary.

 

[Kuu]

Grades don't really say much about intelligence. Those who get good grades might actually be intelligent. Some might just be school-obsessed workaholics, but with no particularly above-average intelligence. Others might be cheaters that know how to work the System.

I think smart people tend to get good grades, but are rarely top of the class. They're intelligent enough to get grades that will open doors in the future, but also realize there's too much effort and not enough rewards in being #1.

 

[Melkor]

There are always three definitions of smart you know.

Well there are several definitions fro everything, except bricks, because you know they'll always be bricks...


-Intelligent-
Naturally 'smart'. The sort of people who while they might be introverted or not in the least bit educated, still posses a born intelligence.

-Knowledgeable-
The sort who might get straight A's in every exam/test but when it all boils down to it, they are pretty stupid without the books.

-Wise-
Wisdom only comes with age and experience.


I think generally INTP'S go for the first.
Perhaps they possess the second but I think it varies.
Some enjoy gathering knowledge, while others prefer their own little world.

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

I've been called wise. And intelligent. And knowledgeable. I'm not, though. So how do people rate intelligence? Is it relative to the speaker? To the most intelligent person there is? Isn't your definition of intelligence a form of wisdom? Am I just posting questions for the sake of it? Find out all the answers AND MORE! NEXT TIME, ON


INTPFORUM.COM/SHOWTHREAD.PHP?t=389&PAGE=3!

 

[Melkor]

I love how the dead thread kills the humour.

 

[LeftenantWalker]

Best way of intelligence is IQ test though not completely accurate and don't measure all types on intelligence.
Grades are pointless, probably the only one test worthwhile to an extent is the IQ test. This is because cause you pass with A's it doesn't mean that you know the subject you could of cheated or revised at the last minute, while someone who fails might know everything about the subject and are smarter. If I'm correct Enstien never finished High school and never had/or little formal teaching in physics.
Knowledge is information which anyone can be given and obtain, and knowledge is power however it is pointless if the person doesn't know how to use that knowledge therefore not smart to an extent.
Intelligence/Smartness best defined how well does the person know and understand that subject or situation. But also to an extent people with less emotions/social skills are smarter or people with High iq (iq140+ is genius) according to some theories

 

[salvage]

Best way of intelligence is IQ test though not completely accurate and don't measure all types on intelligence.

IQ tests do measure something, but they seem far too specific and categorical to actually hone in on true intelligence. Now, will a "truly" intelligent person score high on an IQ test test? More times than not. But dumb people score high on IQ tests sometimes, too.

 

[LeftenantWalker]

IQ tests do measure something, but they seem far too specific and categorical to actually hone in on true intelligence. Now, will a "truly" intelligent person score high on an IQ test test? More times than not. But dumb people score high on IQ tests sometimes, too.

yes i agree with you there, I cannot remember who it was but some famous scientist i think scored low on an iq test, though he was a genius this was because he was too busy looking at the answer from too many points of view

 

[Quest for Liberty]

IQ tests are meant to measure intelligence, that is why it is called an Intelligence Quotient, hence the name, Intelligence.

 

[LeftenantWalker]

IQ tests are meant to measure intelligence, that is why it is called an Intelligence Quotient, hence the name, Intelligence.

That is true but it doesn't measure musical intelligent etc,

 

[Olba]

You do realize that IQ tests were originally developed to see if a kid was good enough to start going to school, right?

Only later did some teachers start labeling low scorers as retarded or otherwise stupid, while the ones with higher scores were labeled geniuses.

But since it's all in school, does it mean anything in a non-academic environment?

IQ tests do measure something, but they seem far too specific and categorical to actually hone in on true intelligence. Now, will a "truly" intelligent person score high on an IQ test test? More times than not. But dumb people score high on IQ tests sometimes, too.

As far as I care, they measure nothing. They're strictly timed and purely about deduction or mathematics. Therefore, they're just like school tests.

I know a few very good teachers who don't look as much into the tests than what you say during the classes. One of these teachers is my philosophy and religion teacher. Look at my grades in philosophy. Straight A's. Now, look at my test scores. All B's.

And of course, any single randomly picked person can score a 150 in a randomly chosen IQ test. It's not an impossibility, it's just a really rare thing.

I happen to hate deadlines, therefore I also dislike most tests. It's a stupid thing, if you ask me. I mean, in a regular test, we got 3 hours to do it, but in the matriculation/graduation exams, we get 6 hours per test. Due to a set amount of time, some people, such as myself, worry too much about the time. Of course, even I have tests where I don't pay a single look to the clock, but that is only constant in my better subjects.

I have had people call me intelligent, even genius. However, it surely doesn't show in my grades. For one, I've never done a proper IQ test, therefore I couldn't care less. Somehow my mother seems to think I once did a test and scored two or three points higher than her, but as far as I know, this is just another of her braggy little stories that have pretty much zero basis in real occurrences. And as a final note, I don't view myself as a genius or that much of an intelligent person. If anything, it's just the masses of average joes that makes me look better.

 

[LeftenantWalker]

yes i agree with you tests are worthless, its the knowledge that counts in my a-levels people who are less intelligent than me got higher grades yet i am smarter and know more about that subject i hate tests, deadlines and coursework all pointless really its only the knowledge that counts and the understanding of that knowledge

 

[salvage]

IQ tests are meant to measure intelligence, that is why it is called an Intelligence Quotient, hence the name, Intelligence.

That is stupid. Just because you give something a name, doesn't mean it is inherently that thing.

 

[Olba]

[qutoe="Quest For Liberty"]
IQ tests are meant to measure intelligence, that is why it is called an Intelligence Quotient, hence the name, Intelligence.

That is stupid. Just because you give something a name, doesn't mean it is inherently that thing.[/quote]

Actually, let's take it a step further. Names mean nothing unless you define every piece of the name.

Intelligence Quotient itself means nothing if you don't know what "quotient" or "intelligence" mean. Therefore, saying that it measures exactly what it's named to measure is stupid.

And the modern intelligence tests, as far as I recall, don't measure a very wide area of intelligences. Some of them are just downright impossible to measure in a balanced way. Specially since the people making the tests are still stuck on the fact that not a single intelligence test will ever be used globally.

And there's also the problem of the definition. From Cambridge, we gain this:

intelligence (ABILITY) Show phonetics
noun
the ability to learn, understand and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason:
an intelligence test
a child of high/average/low intelligence
It's the intelligence of her writing that impresses me.

As you can see, none of the properties given to "intelligence" here can be measured easily. For one, learning is never shown in tests, it's shown much better in casual discussion. For understanding, it, too, is not shown well in tests. Judgments cannot be done well in tests due to the unknown factors. And it's impossible to measure the amount of rational basis in one's decisions in an accurate way.

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

To know a person, you need to know the person.

 

[Dissident]

Spam much cabbo?

Anyway, I dont think the tests are worthless, they measure something, if you try to apply that measurement to something else than what its suppoesd to be applied to then thats your problem. Some tests use only patterns so no math involved, some use words, etc.
Being intelligent doesnt mean you automatically will get better grades at school, IQ tests and school tests are very diferent, nothing impediments a low IQ person to study and memorize information to out-grade a lazy high IQ person. Intelligence certainly helps but sometimes it can be compensated with time, however, nothing will help you if you just cant "get" a complex concept. We can all agree that there are diferent "types" of intelligence, you can be very good with words (understand complex philosophy concepts, other languages, etc) and suck at math for example. There should be several independant tests to see what is your "strong area", instead of trying to measure everyone with just one, that is of little use i grant you that.

 

[Jesin]

Ooh! I have a link for this!

http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/06/done-and-gets-things-smart.html

This is at least partly relevant. I hope I didn't just derail the thread.

 

[salvage]

And the modern intelligence tests, as far as I recall, don't measure a very wide area of intelligences. Some of them are just downright impossible to measure in a balanced way. Specially since the people making the tests are still stuck on the fact that not a single intelligence test will ever be used globally.

Indeed.

 

[Quest for Liberty]

I didn't get here in time to defend myself against the people insulting my argument. rats. getting called stupid by two different people needs some defense... better late than never.

The point of an IQ test is to measure intelligence. The debate is if it does this or not.
So, an analogy: you are offered two subjects, both got identical grades, and identical education, you are supposed to hire them for your company. one gets a score of 140 on an IQ test, the other gets an 80, which would you hire? One is considered a genius, the other, a moron. of course if the company was janitorial or something, it may not matter, but if you were hiring for a job that required the use of the brain to think up of ways to solve problems (other than chemistry problems using Windex and water dilutions) you would have to go with the higher IQ, simply because it DOES mean SOMETHING to be able to do well on an IQ test, even if it doesn't mean that the test is all knowing about every type of intelligence that person may have, it does measure SOME kind of intelligence, and it should be known that the intelligences that it does measure, it does well, The kind of Intelligences that it was meant to measure, are the ones that it tests!!!

everyone is saying how tests don't show anything, but, for example lets say Olba decides to take an official IQ test, and he gets a bad score because he hates deadlines, and he didn't finish it, doesn't that show that I shouldn't hire him because he would never finish the assignments that I gave him on time? Even if you disagree with using IQ tests for showing intelligence, you can at least agree that tests do reveal certain things about a persons character.

 

[Quest for Liberty]

and I agree with dissident

 

[Olba]

The point of an IQ test is to measure intelligence. The debate is if it does this or not.
So, an analogy: you are offered two subjects, both got identical grades, and identical education, you are supposed to hire them for your company. one gets a score of 140 on an IQ test, the other gets an 80, which would you hire? One is considered a genius, the other, a moron. of course if the company was janitorial or something, it may not matter, but if you were hiring for a job that required the use of the brain to think up of ways to solve problems (other than chemistry problems using Windex and water dilutions) you would have to go with the higher IQ, simply because it DOES mean SOMETHING to be able to do well on an IQ test, even if it doesn't mean that the test is all knowing about every type of intelligence that person may have, it does measure SOME kind of intelligence, and it should be known that the intelligences that it does measure, it does well, The kind of Intelligences that it was meant to measure, are the ones that it tests!!!

But in your example, you would be hiring them because of the test scores, not because of what they already have. And that just tells that you're one damn bad employer.

everyone is saying how tests don't show anything, but, for example lets say Olba decides to take an official IQ test, and he gets a bad score because he hates deadlines, and he didn't finish it, doesn't that show that I shouldn't hire him because he would never finish the assignments that I gave him on time? Even if you disagree with using IQ tests for showing intelligence, you can at least agree that tests do reveal certain things about a persons character.

But that is not a property that only appears in the IQ test, but rather a property of any time limited test. Therefore, it's not what the IQ test tells, but what the environment it's set in tells. Which isn't a constant property for the test. Therefore, the test itself tells nothing.

 

[Kuu]

The point of an IQ test is to measure intelligence. The debate is if it does this or not.
So, an analogy: you are offered two subjects, both got identical grades, and identical education, you are supposed to hire them for your company. one gets a score of 140 on an IQ test, the other gets an 80, which would you hire? One is considered a genius, the other, a moron. of course if the company was janitorial or something, it may not matter, but if you were hiring for a job that required the use of the brain to think up of ways to solve problems (other than chemistry problems using Windex and water dilutions) you would have to go with the higher IQ (...)

1. The rest of that paragraph (that I omitted) needs a serious punishment by the punctuation police.

2. Why should I have to go with the high IQ one? I'd consider the IQ data useless, and create my own tests, based on the actual knowledge and skills that would be required of them. I'd also put them BOTH on a trial period, and watch their methods and particular nuances closely, as well as getting feedback from the co-workers...

IQ = irrelevant quackery

 

[Dissident]

From: http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/mainstream.html

1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.

10. A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

The following professors-all experts in intelligence an allied fields-have signed this statement:

(50 names follow)

You are in your right to think that you know better than them if you want, but calling it irrelevant quackery just makes you look bad.

 

[Olba]

You are in your right to think that you know better than them if you want, but calling it irrelevant quackery just makes you look bad.

Look at the following part:

" 1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts."

Now tell me, how do you test the underlined parts with the current IQ tests.

Testing planning is just not something you can do. Takes too much time and preparation.

Comprehension of complex ideas requires too much time and, by definition, ideas new to the individual, making testing it on a larger level impossible since you cannot possibly claim to know what people know and don't know before taking the tst.

Learning quickly, it too takes the pre-requisite of knowing things that the tested individual surely does not know. Which is practically speaking impossible.

Learning from experience is the same as learning, by definition. And in this case, it would mean that the IQ test would have two very similar tests and assume that the tested person fails in the first one. Which just cannot be done.

There. About half od the included forms of "intelligence" ended up being impossible to test in a good way.

And I think the whole paragraph itself is a pile of crap. It repeats things that are tied to each other, making the whole seem a lot larger than it is. Thinking abstractly surely requires reasoning, same as problem solving. You don't solve problems without reasoning.

And by the way, 50 names is very little. And saying that something is true only because the so-called educated experts say so is just stupid. Ever thought about what those experts were doing when they were 15? Thinking about their theories? Hell no, they were in school. So basically, just because they have studied to have whatever fancy title they carry, they are more right than others in a discussion that does not require education or special knowledge?

 

[Dissident]

Look at the following part:

" 1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts."

Now tell me, how do you test the underlined parts with the current IQ tests.

Testing planning is just not something you can do.

That is true, so you dont (it in the IQ test), but when you use other test better suited to measure the ability to plan and compare how well they did you find that high IQ do better at them than lower IQ, as simple as that.

Comprehension of complex ideas requires too much time and, by definition, ideas new to the individual, making testing it on a larger level impossible since you cannot possibly claim to know what people know and don't know before taking the test.

IQ test do not test knowledge, it doesnt matter what you know, if there is for example a series of geometrical figures in a sequence with one missing and you have to figure out what "function" every figure has to be able to see the answer, then there you have complex ideas that are "new" to the individual, need not too much time and no knowledge. You see problems where there arent any.

Learning quickly, it too takes the pre-requisite of knowing things that the tested individual surely does not know. Which is practically speaking impossible.

Why? Im not sure i understand what you are saying. How are you going to measure how fast he learns things that he already knows? you precisely want to show him something that he doesnt know and see how fast he learns it right there.

Learning from experience is the same as learning, by definition. And in this case, it would mean that the IQ test would have two very similar tests and assume that the tested person fails in the first one. Which just cannot be done.

You are seting a false dichotomy, learning from experience is a way of learning, as there are others, you can measure how well a person does in each of them separately, i dont see the problem.

And I think the whole paragraph itself is a pile of crap. It repeats things that are tied to each other, making the whole seem a lot larger than it is. Thinking abstractly surely requires reasoning, same as problem solving. You don't solve problems without reasoning.

Exactly, and as reasoning requires intelligence, a more intelligent person will be better at solving problems (improving the performance in studying and working)

And by the way, 50 names is very little. And saying that something is true only because the so-called educated experts say so is just stupid.

First, that is to explain what is the mainstream thought about intelligence and IQ, mainstream means that its the most generally accepted, you sure understand that there are more than 50 people who think that. Those 50 names are just so you know that the text was checked by experts and not something that the owner of the website felt lyke writing. Do you think that you can dismiss all the years those people studied to be what they, are like they mean nothing just by saying "so-called educated experts"?

Ever thought about what those experts were doing when they were 15? Thinking about their theories? Hell no, they were in school. So basically, just because they have studied to have whatever fancy title they carry, they are more right than others in a discussion that does not require education or special knowledge?

Why do you say that it doesnt require education or special knowledge?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Arvey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bouchard
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Carroll
I could go on and on, they are proffesors of psychology specialized in this subject.

 

[Bårris]

I think smartness is based on how easily you can grasp abstract concepts. I for example find particle physics realtively easy to understand, while my friends don't get it at all.

Smartness should not be based on what you can do as a result of practice!

 

[Words]

On stone, there is no such thing. "Smart" is already relative to people's definition of it. In fact, every word is.

 

[Moniker]

I'm not sure. I don't think the current tests out there are a good way of measuring intelligence. Also, smart is a subjective term. In comparison to a lot of my classmates, I'm really smart. In comparison to some of the people on this forum, I'm nothing exceptional.

quoted for truth.