The concept of being smart and dumb is referenced a lot. But what does it actually mean to be either? If some people have the ability to think very logically, or they're good at math, but they're bad at expressing themselves then that person would be labeled as an idiot by just about every person they met. Or someone may be "stupid" but good at remembering facts. Then they could fake their "intelligence". It's all relative, that has been established. But still it feels like we should have more concise definitions. This is what I got; Someone who is "dumb" can not see things from other than their own perspective. They'll believe anything said as long as it coincides with their already established beliefs or if it's said by someone who shares they general opinions or school of thought. Someone who is "smart" is someone who's willing to question even their most fundamental beliefs. Anyone else have their own definition?
I was supposed to... something... something to the first person who pointed that out. Can't remember what it was.
Even animals can 'think logically' (a deer running from a lion is 'thinking/behaving' logically'), but at a certain stage, the degree to which somebody can 'think logically' depends more upon how much understanding they posses of concepts than it does upon their inherent 'smartness' (since concepts are the tools of logic). In the same way that a mechanic couldn't solve a 'mechanical problem' without enough mechanical tools, one couldn't solve a 'logical' problem without enough conceptual tools. So somebody that understands enough concepts well enough that 'thinks very logically' would necessarily be able to 'speak/express themselves logically/clearly' too, because in this regard the only difference between 'thinking logically' and 'speaking logically' is that the former is private, the latter public. This is why people who speak with no clarity usually don't have anything to actually say (of course there's a difference between speaking with clarity and people just not being able to understand). To answer the question; I'd say that general intelligence is the best way to determine intelligence, which is what IQ tests generally measure (despite how though they don't take into account creativity/imagination).
A very profound observation. It invites contemplation on what exactly a concept is and what constitutes, and is the cause of it. Do you have any thoughts on this?
To me inteligence is essentially the ability to learn and remember more things more quickly. A lot of rationality is subjective and based on individual experiences. I see a lot of people, myself included, calling people "illogical" but the reality is, its all subjective. Most of these debates aren't math or science. Sometimes there is no right answer. -yuri
If you were to ask me op. I would tell you they both were equivalent. To be called smart rather than cognitive infers superiority to another intelligence. Or a "dumb person". But that dumb person has some level of cognizance, so some one is less intelligent than him. Making him " smart ". I am of the opinion that thoughts cannot be quantified. Hence those words mean... Nothing. Although I do like your definition of smart. It implies actually thinking rather than accepting all as is.
so basically, the smart keep an open mind and the dumb stick to their established beliefs. Then think: you were born into poverty where your single mother raised you alongside your siblings while juggling two jobs. you learn that you must live in accordance with the world around you to survive as a kin. You get a part-time job, you mingle with the masses. you're thinking is influenced by those around you and you're thinking shapes your outlook. So, since birth you've been forced to live and act as you were told; your mother having you watch your siblings, scaring you off the streets or away from places that the mother see's to be dangerous or being micro-managed within your part-time profession. The only life you know is coinciding with the rest of the world to survive. You coincide by observing things around you and contextualizing them with your personal mode of survival.You have no other opportunity to question the beliefs of those around them. You aren't dumb per say, but perceived as such because of social constraints. Yet, to survive you must stick to your established beliefs. Everyone questions fundamental beliefs. Everyone, at one point in their life, thinks "What the actual fuck am I doing here, what is the meaning of life?" If they have the independence to question that on their own, they have the ability to live an open minded life in which their personal thoughts sustain their thinking patterns. If you were to look at the above example of someone brought up in poverty, you see that they have limited independence, and start to answer these existential questions through the practices of those around them. YES, you could go deeper and ask "But what about the shapers' of the poverty person's mind? Surely they are dumb?" No. Intelligence is largely a reflection of society. Give people the proper resources(a philosophy teacher perhaps) and they will be able to question the most fundamental beliefs. Restrict people from that resource, and they will adapt alongside those around them, for we are all constrained to the social structure. the dumb are the constrained, the smart given an opportunity to become such.
I think the main difference between smart and stupid is our varying ability to process complex information in our environment. Whether it be maths, science or philosophy; these are all just different forms of information processing for our brains. Our brains are biological information processing machines. An intelligent person is better able to process this information and arrive at the correct result, while the opposite is true for someone who is stupid. There are different ways in which we make sense of things. IQ tests are designed to test some of these different forms of information processing. There is more to our intelligence than what an IQ test measures, but intelligence is mostly due to our short term memory, reasoning and verbal skills.
as of latest i'm starting to think being smart is just how you apply your mental energy. like i got a lot of mental energy but so much is wasted on worries and everyday tasks that i end up having depleted myself without applying myself to anything. the ability to explore as much of life as possible and still make it back home. i wouldn't dismiss short term memory as a factor of intelligence. i feel like i just described wisdom on the top and intelligence on the bottom.
You want my definition? It's as flimsy and subjective and non-demonstrable as everyone elses. Fucking philosophy, man. 'Smart' to me is a positive assessment of someone's cognitive abilities which are many and individually may or not may not be taken into consideration under any separate usage of the word (e.g. memory, social intelligence, analytical/critical thinking, knowledge, observation, application of knowledge, language ability, learning/adaptation, etc etc) and the only means of assessment is itself subjective. 'Dumb' being the negative assessment. And that's completely aside from how we USE the words which do more that just communicate concepts, they're also used socially for compliments/insults, showing favour/dissent and whatnot.
I'd define dumb as someone who never questions life, rules or existence. You just accept whatever purpose is handed down from society then you die. Fucking dumb.
I usually seem to see people who use such term's as hypocrites, with their implications of pride, power and majesty. A person who is smart in societal term's, can be such as hold's those three. While the person who is dumb, would hold none. I always advise against such games, being that I believe anything a man can imagine with enough will, it can be done. And I advise against holding yourself up to other people's standards of what they deem is morally right and acceptable. In other words, think for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. The real question of all philosophy is, do you really know? And the real answer is, I do not know. If I were to judge what would be intelligent, I'd say, those who can assume nothing and chew through a subject without digesting it would be most wise. And anyone who is quick to assume would be indeed most foolish. Being that the wise man, admits he knows nothing. And the assumptions of a fool, implies he does indeed know. What would be more true? On a generalized scale, people are most often without knowledge, due to the fact that no one can know everything. While the averages of people who admit they know nothing and are ready to learn more things, I myself cannot determine. And who is a man to say they know, when they do not. Who is a man that will lay claim to knowledge, just because someone else knows?
Concepts are just agreed upon sounds we manipulate with our vocal chords. We agree that the sound we make refers to something because we named it, but that could never actually be the thing it's 'really' referring to because we literally just made the sounds up....with human limitations that only humans can measure in the first place. So just because someone can't conform to the majority of the populous' agreed upon sounds doesn't make them any smarter or dumber than the one's who can memorize and conform to those same agreed upon sounds ...which we label as how things are "supposed" to be. Everyone's alive for the very first time with no idea of their origin, yet they're full of their own solidified idea's on how things 'should' be while they're around. Nobody has a real clue about anything, we're all just trying out best to navigate through this mystery of life.
[SIZE=10.5pt]It helps a bit to see the brain as a computer. Mainly, that it has a hard drive and a processor. Some people have a fast and elaborate processor which allows them to comprehend and elaborate on more complex ideas and concepts. Other people have a large hard drive which allows them to store tons and tons of data. Some have both, others have neither. Those with one of the two, but not the other, can do one of the two, but not the other. Examples are the infamous regurgitator kids in school, who ace every test simply because they can sit down and absorb 100 pages from a text book (good hard drive) but generally are not very complex thinkers when engaged in conversation (poor to mediocre processor). Their opposite are the generally quite bright guys with out-of-the-box thinking, and complex notions, who however never cut it in school and barely graduated or didn't graduate at all simply because they hated studying mundane data for years. This is perhaps ironic, since that very same high capacity processor might have been just the part that made them realize that most of the data they had crammed down their throat will either not have a real world application for them, or will be easy to look up anyway so why spend hours cramming it. The phrase “too smart for your own good†comes to mind here…[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]Those with neither can do neither. These are your garden variety unfortunate dunces of society. They have never sought information, never cared to seek information, and when information was presented to them, it went unintelligibly in one ear and out of the other. Those with both can do both. These are true intellectual leaders of society. They not only possess the ability to mentally store huge amounts of data, but they also know how to process it on a complex level. These are generally the top guys in a field, perhaps mostly present in various branches of science. A top notch astrophysicist at a major research facility, for example, did not get there without having been able to learn an absurd amount of data and demonstrably process it for peer review. The average person would not be able to process said data accurately, or at all. Try discussing String Theory with a random guy on the subway and watch his eyes glaze over. Obviously, I'm painting with a wide brush here and there are degrees to all of this. Some people fit the descriptions above to a tee, while others may be cris-crosses and combinations. Someone might have a 30% hard drive and an 80% processor, while someone else may have those numbers reversed, lowered, or raised.[/SIZE]
I think that smart and dumb are subjective, opinion based terms that can't really be defined except to yourself. They are like "attractive" and "ugly". No real way to define them.