What makes people "smart"?

[Archangel]

Because I have honestly no idea.

I mean, I'm not exactly an idiot, but when I look a a chess grand master or a maths wiz, I feel like I'm an utter retard - but then, who's to say that those people don't look the same way at somebody who's great at hermeneutics?

However, when I analyse myself, what I see as that which makes others think that I'm a pretty clever bloke is a combination of basically two things: curiosity and memory retention. That's pretty much it. I am interested in a lot of things, and when I read about them, I am able to store that information accurately and for a long time. And when I come across something similar, I am able to connect the dots because the other stuff is accessible in my memory.

Hence: I know a lot because I both want to know a lot and have the capabilities necessary to store information where it's handy and easily accessed.

But in that respect, I'm trumped by anyone with a computer and an internet connection.

So apparently, that still doesn't equate intelligence. A lot of input and a good hard drive do not a good computer make.

What else is there? The ability to recognise patterns, I guess. Make quick associations between certain instances. From philosophy to mathematics and music production, that's a pretty useful skill to have. But doesn't that come down to memory, as well? After having seen a shitload of patterns, those able to recall them on a whim are able to apply them or recognise similar ones. It's memory coupled with training. Drawing a conclusion is only possible if you have information.

Much is made of Mozart writing hugely complex music at kindergarten age, but you can bet your arse that he had listened to a shitload of music up to that point. What we call talented cooks are those who can easily recall the flavours of different ingredients in a dish, and use that as a starting point.

But memory, by itself, isn't intelligence. So what is left? Can it be that the only difference between a "smart" person with a good (specific) memory and a "dumb" person with the same is, in fact, the willingness to use it, to fill that hard drive with information?

Is curiosity the core of intelligence?

[Phil Theehor]

There is an easy test for intelligence: Does s/he agree with Phil?

[Archangel]

I don't think that disagreeing with you is enough to be called "smart"...

[Phil Theehor]

Good one. Yes. Good one.

[UNC]

I'll let you dumb dumbs discuss this a few days before coming back and explaining it all

[Archetype]

The simplest answer I got is processing efficiency. I remember a radio program from summer on intelligence, and they went through a number of ways in which intelligence is being/has been tested. IQ tests are the big one, but on their own, don't really say all that much beyond the surface. The experiment that stuck in my mind involved tetris and I think an MRI from the late 80s/early 90s. They took a number of subjects that hadn't played the game before, and just had them train on it for a number of weeks. Basically, the MRI showed they had less brain activity the more experienced they got.

Couldn't find that study, but I did find one with related results, here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-41GWN9P-3&_user=3454483&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000060665&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3454483&md5=14beef3f9859012fe396dc0fae3ca74f), and it said on CBC's website that a guy named Dr. Richard Haier had been observing people doing IQ tests with an MRI.

Now, what factors into the efficiency, I couldn't say.

[IdiotBrain]

It could be something as simple as "wiring".

EG: Student A is "smarter" than student B because his/her synapses fire more efficiently.

[Archetype]

It could be something as simple as "wiring".

EG: Student A is "smarter" than student B because his/her synapses fire more efficiently.
Except that you can actively improve the efficiency of the brain.

[IdiotBrain]

Right, how does this refute my conjecture?

[UNC]

Your name is idiot brain

[IdiotBrain]

Close, but my handle is "IdiotBrain". It's difficult I know, but it has two syllables.

[Archetype]

Right, how does this refute my conjecture?
It's not simple.

[IdiotBrain]

One can "train" their brain to be more efficient, similar to an athlete's muscle memory.

As far as I know one cannot train ones synapses to "fire" more efficiently.

[Morfin]

My facile opinion is that "intelligence" is the wiring of the brain -- ability to process and store information.

While being "smart" goes beyond intelligence. It takes intelligence (of different kinds), pattern recognition, and perception. Many people are intelligent but not that smart. And, many people with no formal learning are tremendously smart.

For example, look at con men (in all their forms). They have great native intelligence in terms of being able to read people -- an intelligence that they likely could never describe or teach -- but many have no schooling. It is an innate talent.

Or how about U.S. football players? How many times have you seen one interviewed and thought "This guy's an idiot. How does he even remember to breathe?" However, as to football plays, he is able to process a tremendous amount of information quickly and react to it. He is "football smart."

The point underlying Arch's question is that "intelligent" and "smart" are not synonymous, though often thought to be. An American example, "House" on TV. Dr. House is tremendously-intelligent. He is not smart; he's a social-misfit asshole (or since this is one of Arch's threads: arsehole).

Just a couple off the top o' my head thoughts -- not complete, not thought out. Probably not smart.

[Archangel]

Right now, I'm having trouble formulating proper literary/scientific sentences, let alone theses.

My synapses must be on holiday.

[UNC]

Maybe it didn't clear customs

[Archangel]

I'm sure I've got more than one...

[Archetype]

One can "train" their brain to be more efficient, similar to an athlete's muscle memory.

As far as I know one cannot train ones synapses to "fire" more efficiently.

I don't think you understand, it's not as simple as wiring because there is more involved than just the speed of the synapses.

[Limp]

I r smart.

[freegood]

Is curiosity the core of intelligence?

That and the drive to never be satisfied with knowing more.

Most geniuses are made from hard work and not pure innate talent. People don't want to believe this simple fact or do not want to put themselves up to the toil and failures neccessary for it.

So a moron can be a world class mathemetician. He could spend 30 years writing a proof to solve a major problem while a normal person spends 5 or 10, but once it's published, there's no difference.


It's that fact that bugs me how a certain political candidate could have been this close to the 2nd highest office of the land. Her blatant and unblinking incouriousness and her relishing her simple town ignorance as a badge of pride doomed her ticket. It's not that she didn't cram hard enough. It's that she felt entitled to whatever she could win without knowing what it really took to get there.

[Archangel]

Ironically enough, that reminds me of a lot of people in academia...

[Pax Britannia]

I used to think I was smart. Then when I started going down the pub and mixing with the general populace I realised I was really smart.

It was a pleasant surprise.

[Archangel]

GMF has inflated my opinion of myself a great deal, as well.

[Tar Heel]

Only Arch would create a thread justifying his own intelligence.

[Pax Britannia]

What does Arch need with a starship?

(Nerd rep for anyone who gets that reference)

[Archangel]

Actually, it's mostly rooted in self doubt.

[Tar Heel]

Yeah. I'm a total idiot and this place makes me feel like Einstein.

But I understand your point. I think "smarts" are largely perception oriented. That is you have to have other people of similar intelligence around you in order for them to fully appreciate your intellect, or lack of it. If you surround yourself with idiots, like myself, they will all think you're smart just because you know more than them. It doesn't make you the smartest man alive, but it does make you the idiot king. I do think intellect and genius are 2 different things. I think genius is specific to certain areas of extreme understanding or performance, while a person considered to be an intellectual has more of a broader knowledge. For instance, there are autistic children that can barely Velcro their shoes, but can play Beethoven to perfection on the piano. Intellectuals, as I see them, are more above average all around.

[freegood]

Jack of all trades but the master of none

[halfabubbleoff]

Been a way for too long and can't stay long as it is. Still, since it is an Arch thread and a question of "smart" I feel the need to chime in.

I see a lot of biology related responses to what I think is a perception issue. It all comes down to what your point of reference is. I am considered "smart" by many of the people who know me because I am well read and posses a vocabulary of multiple syllable words (that I like to use quite often).

I am with Arch to an extent in that curiosity has a lot to do with it. My retention, however, is not the best in the world. I have a memory like a sieve. Things that I should know (important dates, spelling, what I had for breakfast, etc...) slip my mind easily. I do remember odd bits of trivia that no one could have a use for. I am considered "smart" because I can fix computers displaying the oddest errors. I have to admit, that is mostly by instinct. Does that count?

I think Arch hit on it in his post, but did not elaborate. I see chess masters and am amazed at their intellect. I am also awed by the recall on a sports fanatic for their favorite team's stats, or a dancer's memory of complex choreography. I would still wager that I could best many of them on other benchmarks of intelligence, though.

In short, "smart" is only a point of view. I have found that most people excel at something. I would also take Arch over a chess master in a battle over philosophy any day. Many people we look up to as "smart" or intelligent are narrowly focused. Einstein is considered a brilliant mind, but could be a dumb as a box of rocks at times. It is all in focus and perception.

I know I didn't really add much to the current argument and went back a bit too much to the OP, but you can deal with that I'm sure.

[Morfin]

Actually, it's mostly rooted in self doubt.

I once had the discussion with another lawyer about drive and success. We agreed that a good part of it was being scared we were going to do something wrong, which is consistent with Arch's comment about self-doubt. We were scared of missing some key point and of the embarrassment of being "found out" to be poor lawyers. So, I believe self-doubt has a good deal to do with being smart.

I hate to puff up Arch's already-bloated ego, but... he has repeatedly stated that the more he learns, the more he realizes how little he knows. This is a function of curiosity and self-doubt. Someone who is "not smart" believes he knows all there is to know about some subject and believes that someone who has a different opinion is an idiot. "Smart" people learn something and then are curious to learn more about it, and more and more, or different aspects of the same thing -- to excel or master something.

Applying this to the law, I do a lot of work with HIV-related law and confidentiality. I know the laws, as to any number of people. However, knowing the laws is one thing, and applying them to any given factual situation is another. It cannot be done haphazardly. Same as attorneys who are First Amendment experts. You are not an expert because you know the First Amendment -- any idiot can learn the few words comprising it. However, it is the nuance and the skill of the attorneys and judges who interpret it that make them experts. This comes from a drive to succeed, an intellectual curiosity, and, I believe, a fear of being wrong.

[Yelram]

Knowing what questions to ask. Period. Someone could have all of the book smarts in the world, but when it comes to problem solving (which I see as a mainstay of intelligence) finding the root of the problem, and focusing your questions on the quickest route to ascertain the answer. Much of my job requires figuring out the cause of a problem, and correcting it, and in much of it, time is an issue. So really, its a level of efficiency. Big words are great, as long as you arent trying to communicate with someone who doesnt understand them. Taking inherently difficult concepts, and putting them into language that a housewife could understand takes more intelligence than postulating about the concept itself. When it comes to trivial facts, I collect books, I have a whole room full of books, and about 85% of them are non-fiction, purely for reference on hard to find subjects.

[}{arlequin]

Applying this to the law, I do a lot of work with HIV-related law and confidentiality. I know the laws, as to any number of people. However, knowing the laws is one thing, and applying them to any given factual situation is another. It cannot be done haphazardly. Same as attorneys who are First Amendment experts. You are not an expert because you know the First Amendment -- any idiot can learn the few words comprising it. However, it is the nuance and the skill of the attorneys and judges who interpret it that make them experts. This comes from a drive to succeed, an intellectual curiosity, and, I believe, a fear of being wrong.
this is also the number one reason i have justified every exam that i cheated on. or tried to.

let's take science/chemistry/physics, b/c those are my particularly easy to remember examples. tons of formulas. fractions. square roots. and on and on. i do not look fondly upon the times that i had to memorize them. so i didn't. in my infinite wisdom, i had decided that to me it was a monumental waste of time, so i made cheat sheets out of everything i could.

unethical. i'll never learn that way. only cheating myself, blah blah... my view on this was that if i'm an idiot, and haven't studied or paid attention, i STILL wouldn't know what to do w/ a given formula, whether i memorized it or not. a chimpanzee can memorize it too. knowing WHEN to APPLY each different one, that's where i saw intellect coming handy. so that was my justification for not doing the dumb memorizing, but rather saving myself for the challenge of problem identification/correct application instead.

law is a perfect example of that. you may know it well, but someone may know how to APPLY it to a given situation (the 'same' situation) better than you.

[Gary_Busey]

Application is half the battle.

[Pox]

Adderall

[freegood]

this is also the number one reason i have justified every exam that i cheated on. or tried to.

let's take science/chemistry/physics, b/c those are my particularly easy to remember examples. tons of formulas. fractions. square roots. and on and on. i do not look fondly upon the times that i had to memorize them. so i didn't. in my infinite wisdom, i had decided that to me it was a monumental waste of time, so i made cheat sheets out of everything i could.

unethical. i'll never learn that way. only cheating myself, blah blah... my view on this was that if i'm an idiot, and haven't studied or paid attention, i STILL wouldn't know what to do w/ a given formula, whether i memorized it or not. a chimpanzee can memorize it too. knowing WHEN to APPLY each different one, that's where i saw intellect coming handy. so that was my justification for not doing the dumb memorizing, but rather saving myself for the challenge of problem identification/correct application instead.

law is a perfect example of that. you may know it well, but someone may know how to APPLY it to a given situation (the 'same' situation) better than you.

Science might not have been your thing, but don't sell yourself short into thinking that you couldn't have been a great chemist/physicist. I think you missed out the point of Morfin's first two paragraphs.

Dumb memorization, though I hated every bit of it and didn't do as much as I should, is like those training montages you see in the Rocky movies. It keeps your mind fit and on focus.

I could do calculus formulas, but I didn't retain it in my long term memory, so it was like you said, a waste of time. In part, this goes along with being smart or those who already have talent because the drive to push oneself sometimes can't be because of the company or rivals he keeps. Mostly it's about turning your skills, whether strengths or weaknesses, into something that you know you can use at will.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

I'd say the ability to correctly analyze, store, and recall information.

[Claydon]

I'd say the ability to correctly analyze, store, and recall information.

Basically you are referring to critical thinking, sadly this is a skill/concept that is no longer taught in the US public school systems. Rather we favor feelings and instilling self confidence.

[wonderllama]

I have a theory on this.
People get to the age of about 11 or 12 and they either "get it" or they "don't get it".
That's it. The problem is, once you pass that age, you can't then "get it". There is one chance and one chance only.

This "IT" I am talking about is a complex beast. Not just a single thing, it is many things intertwined into the very being of a person.

A "smart" person has the ability to do several things, namely remove themselves from a situation to view it objectively, empathize with others which is similar to the previous point but keeps themself in the situation, they have a longer term perspective (ie: they aren't just acting for immediate results), and most importantly, they have a comprehension of consequences.

Non-smart people don't have these qualities, and as I said, these qualities in a person are acquired by the time someone is about 11 or 12 and if they don't have them by then, they will never have them.

Sure, some of this is instinctive, but a lot of it is learned from your family and friends, or events which take place when you are a child. We've all seen the brilliant prodigy spring forward from a ratbag family, but the reason we know about that is because it is the exception to the norm.

[Mustard]

I've seen 34 posts now in this thread and yet I'm dismayed, because the lack of the understanding wisdom has on being "smart" has barely (if at all) been discussed. Not only that, but I have also noticed that capacity and potential have also not been discussed an adequate amount.

Ever since I was 10 I have given serious though to what being "smart" or "intelligent" really is. I wondered if I was smart, and strived to answer it the best I could, because deep down I knew I was, almost to an arrogant degree, rationalized because compared to my peers (friends, school, etc) at the time, there was no doubt that I just "got it" far easier and faster than anyone else. So, like I said, thats when I started to try and understand why this was.

What I came up with, using my peers as weights of measure, was that being "smart" is a combination of factors that followed a direct line. Those factors, I have concluded, were one's knowledge and retention, one's ability to process that knowledge, the quickness that one can assimilate processed knowledge into thoughts, and finally, one's ability to use thought and give it meaning where it can be applied in life as effectively as possible. Or, simply put, knowledge and capacity -> potential -> intellect -> wisdom or "smart"

As I started to put all of this together, I realized that being "smart" can best be described as an actual talent, not much different from that of natural, gifted athletes. I saw that even "smart" kids who could challange and/or surpass me on a knowledge level were that way because their parents had instilled within them the need to study for hours on end in order to prepare well for tests.

However, book-learning alone doesn't make a person "smart", it makes them educated, and I am pretty damn sure that a big percentage (90% or so) can be educated if they are willing. So does that make 90% of the general population "smart"? Ha! Hardly... That only covers one aspect of what being "smart" is. Granted it is the first step... but still, thats where most people stop, as far as I can tell.

Even now, as I sit in classes filled with people from 18 to 50, I still see the same shit I did when I was in school as a kid. That is, lots of people (not all, but most) with some knowledge who just do the bare minimum and make excuses for their shortcomings. The thing I see is that they are just unable to work things out. I have tried to tutor, oh, about 8 people in accounting now, and every one of them I have come to the conclusion that they have the knowledge to do the work, but they have an infinitely difficult problem with taking that knowledge, and processing it into the correct answers. In one case, one very sweet, attractive, and seemingly knowledgable girl that I helped tutor last term, I swear, could have thrown darts at an answer board, and hit every spot possible except for the right answer. At one point I asked if she was just guessing and hoping to be right, and she said, "yeah". It was so frustrating... She just couldn't "get it". I tried and tried to explain it in multiple ways, but I might as well have been teaching Mandarin to a dog, it was all in vain.

I digress, but every case I've personally seen proves (in my mind anyway) my rationale for what being "smart" is. Some people are truly "smart" because they have all four parts of the chain and they are strong. Most people do in fact have all four parts of the chain, but one or more parts are weak and that affects their ability in one way or another. And some people have an entire part of the chain missing-in-action, and its really visible because of the way they act and present themselves, and no, I'm not talking about mentally handicapped people. I know there are real, breathing and walking individuals out there (who are part of soicety and contribute towards it) who actually cannot comprehend seemingly simple ideas beyond maybe speaking them aloud from a book. Don't ask me why they can't... maybe their mother smoked crack during pregnancy?

That brings up another thing though, the talent for being "smart" that I hit on earlier. Is it a developmental abnormality during pregnancy? I'm serious. If being born w/o the ability to rationalize could be argued a birth defect, could being born with amazing "smarts" be a birth abnormality as well? Both certainly are not the norm, while one is a detrement, and the other is a benefit. So could being "smart" be an abnormality? I will leave that for you to determine.

[wonderllama]

What he said!

[halfabubbleoff]

I bow before The Sink's insightful and well written post.

[freegood]

I'll still bet experience and drive over capacity and potential any day.

[Archangel]

So you voted for McCain, then?

[freegood]

Hah, only if that geezer remembered he what he stood for 8 years ago.

[Archetype]

The point underlying Arch's question is that "intelligent" and "smart" are not synonymous, though often thought to be. An American example, "House" on TV. Dr. House is tremendously-intelligent. He is not smart; he's a social-misfit asshole (or since this is one of Arch's threads: arsehole).

I'm pretty sure that point is inserted, since intelligent and smart are used as synonyms in the OP. Plus, House? Bad example, socially he knows exactly what he's doing. The stereotypical computer game nerd would be better.

I once had the discussion with another lawyer about drive and success. We agreed that a good part of it was being scared we were going to do something wrong, which is consistent with Arch's comment about self-doubt. We were scared of missing some key point and of the embarrassment of being "found out" to be poor lawyers. So, I believe self-doubt has a good deal to do with being smart.
Survival of the fit enough, as they say. Pretty rare to find someone who achieves more because of pure ambition. Usually that ambition is fueled by fear and doubt and all the good things that make you think you're gonna slip under the rug.

Oh, and I just realized in that article it says creativity and intelligence are genuinely different skills. What's the difference between the two, und how does one measure it?

[Insomniac]

Warren Buffet is a very smart man who knows how to make a lot of money, and by knowing what to throw his money at, he greatly helps society. But drop him in Africa, and he's a worthless dunce. Raise him in Africa, and he may very well be a worthless dunce. Alternatively, a Maori tribesman might save your life in the wilderness, be able to identify every plant and animal in a hundred-mile radius, but in civilized society, he makes minimum wage, or ends up in jail.

We all agree intelligence, whatever it is, is partly nature and partly nurture. There's no need to talk about how much is one and how much is the other. But it may also be worth pointing out intelligence is highly situational. Leonardo da Vinci was clearly a genius, but he might not be able to understand electronics or programming. He'd be pitching infomercials at 3 a.m.

So I'll call intelligence being very, very good at something that is highly valued.

[mototwo78]

As far as I know one cannot train ones synapses to "fire" more efficiently.

Sure you can.

Gather 'round everyone while I show off my physiology smarts.

If we're talking about being "smart", generally learning and memory are significant aspects of what we consider intelligence. A common component of learning is producing a new response to a stimulus when that stimulus has been associated with a different stimulus (think Pavlov).

Donald Hebb postulated that excitatory synapses are strengthened when the presynaptic inputs successfully triggers action potentials in the postsynaptic neuron, which is a badass way or saying that the correlation of pre and postsynaptic firing actually changes the efficacy of neuronal transmissions. Inputs that fire together, strengthen together.

One mechanism that has been repeatedly documented to produce such lasting effects is called long-term potentiation. Without diving deeply into the mechanism, the end result of LTP is insertion of additional AMPA receptors (http://www.cellscience.com/Reviews5/Acqua2.jpg) into the synaptic membrane, which increases the synapses ability to strongly respond to an input than it did before. Right now this is what we consider the synaptic basis for learning and memory.

ETA: This is my first post on the new board, but I was around on the old one, so keep the noob bashing to a minimum, you twats.

[Archetype]

As far as I know one cannot train ones synapses to "fire" more efficiently.

Sure you can.

Gather 'round everyone while I show off my physiology smarts.

If we're talking about being "smart", generally learning and memory are significant aspects of what we consider intelligence. A common component of learning is producing a new response to a stimulus when that stimulus has been associated with a different stimulus (think Pavlov).

Donald Hebb postulated that excitatory synapses are strengthened when the presynaptic inputs successfully triggers action potentials in the postsynaptic neuron, which is a badass way or saying that the correlation of pre and postsynaptic firing actually changes the efficacy of neuronal transmissions. Inputs that fire together, strengthen together.

One mechanism that has been repeatedly documented to produce such lasting effects is called long-term potentiation. Without diving deeply into the mechanism, the end result of LTP is insertion of additional AMPA receptors (http://www.cellscience.com/Reviews5/Acqua2.jpg) into the synaptic membrane, which increases the synapses ability to strongly respond to an input than it did before. Right now this is what we consider the synaptic basis for learning and memory.

ETA: This is my first post on the new board, but I was around on the old one, so keep the noob bashing to a minimum, you twats.
I don't think anybody could.