|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 3, 2018 21:24:54 GMT -5
Allow me to pick the board's collective brain.
Serious question for everyone that's related to a possible future research question I've been mulling over lately, but am not quite sure how to approach yet. So, I'm looking for a bit of feedback.
When you describe someone as "smart" and/or "intelligent," what do mean by that? In other words, what's your definition of "smart" and/or "intelligent?" What are the qualities of a person that signal to you that she/he is "smart" and/or "intelligent?"
Also, do those two words even mean the same thing to you? Or do you think that the word "smart" conveys something different (either slightly or dramatically) than "intelligent?" If so, what distinguishes the two? For instance, can you think of a person you would be more likely to describe as "smart" but less likely to describe as "intelligent?" (or the other way around).
Please don't Google or otherwise look up the technical definitions online. This is kind of an exploration in descriptive linguistics (how people actually use words) and less about prescriptive (what the official definitions are). I want to know what YOU think, what YOUR definition(s) is, not what some dictionary or website says.
Thanks in advance for all of your thoughts on this!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2018 21:46:41 GMT -5
I do use them slightly differently (to myself at least), as I think of it. But that's just me, and I don't at all assume anyone else or the dictionary uses them that way. Surely I would not use them "my" way and expect the world to make the same distinction I make below.
If I say I think someone is intelligent, it is less about how much knowledge they've amassed or educational level they've attained (though those might indicate a certain degree of intelligence) and more about the way they think -- how they approach problems and think them through. For me it denotes a certain nimbleness of mind, an ability to approach complex questions and assess the complexity, to connect the dots, think outside the box, etc.
Smart is a word I'd be more likely to use for the person who has amassed a bunch of knowledge, and/or is quick on his feet in an argument. (Some extremely intelligent people are not quick on their feet at all, perhaps because of their ability to assess just how complex an issue is -- the more you understand, sometimes the less you're willing to spit out the first thought that leaps to mind.)
The straight-A kid who studies hard is smart. She may well also be highly intelligent, but not necessarily -- plenty of mediocre intellects go far on hard work (and nothing wrong with that). But intelligent is, from me, a higher compliment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 3, 2018 22:10:09 GMT -5
Perfect. Thanks @cassandraw! That's exactly the type of stuff I'm looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 4, 2018 0:33:59 GMT -5
Ooh, interesting. I don't know if it's my subconscious relating smart to the phrase "street smart", but I tend to use smart for someone who can think and especially problem solve quickly and creatively, and who has a good ability to see through the fog and the BS and get to the heart of the matter efficiently.
I would use intelligent more for the sorts of esoteric and high level analysis/critique/theorizing abilities where one is able to understand various components and come up with new perspectives and ideas.
So to put another way, smart is more for those who can break things down to essentials and solve the issue/zero in on the target; whereas intelligent is more for those who can synthesize complex ideas and knowledge into more than the sum of its parts. I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 4, 2018 2:43:57 GMT -5
Thanks, ce!
|
|
|
|
Post by GilroyC on Aug 4, 2018 7:53:05 GMT -5
See I think the problem here comes from the fact that smarts/intelligence does tend to be split into categories. As CE mentioned, Street Smart/Book Smart are known designations, because people tend to split things into boxes.
To me, smart depends on circumstances. MacGuyver was smart when he was out in the field and having to fix things with just available items.
Someone is intelligent with how they think through a problem, be it as society considers normal or somewhere outside the normalized box.
So while they may not be the same, they are interrelated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 8:35:21 GMT -5
See, I think MacGuyver's being able to find solutions with just available items showed what I'd call intelligence. He wasn't following instructions. He hadn't learned specifically how to solve the problem with those exact items. Confronted with a problem and a bunch of random items, he was able to think through the problem and use what elements were at hand to work out a unique solution.
If he'd memorized a book on "how to build a rocket out of old bicycle parts" and proceeded to apply it in the field when confronted with a need to build said rocket, I'd say he was smart.
ETA:
I never watched that stupid "Suits" show about the non-lawyer who got a job as a lawyer at a high-powered firm. But I understand that the premise is that he had a photographic memory and impressed the hell out of partner in an interview by spewing all the law he memorized, and said partner was soooooo impressed he decided that he just HAD to hire this guy even if he wasn't really a lawyer, despite the fact that the firm would be in yuuuuuuge trouble if the deception was ever uncovered.
Okay, that's really fucking stupid because while having an awesome memory is certainly helpful as a lawyer, it is actually not at all the chief requirement. It's about applying the relevant law to the facts of your client's case and advocating effectively, not memorizing screeds of cases, statutes, regulations, etc. And no one could possibly memorize all the applicable law. Seriously. Go to a law library some time. You couldn't possibly read it all in a lifetime, much less memorize it -- nor do you need to. So no fucking way would a partner be so mesmerized by this guy's memory that he would just have to risk his future and his firm to hire him.
But take that aside.
What "Suits" guy is demonstrating, in my definition, is merely that he is smart. He's got all this law right there at his fingertips! And just watch him spew it in an interview?
But can he apply it effectively to a new set of circumstances that aren't really on all fours with any of the case law, and there's plenty of room for opposing counsel to come up with good arguments against his case? That takes intelligence.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 4, 2018 8:53:40 GMT -5
Well, let me--of all people--weigh in here on the side of inconsistency.
Specific questions like Opti's, cause people to evaluate their own habits, to be sure, but I think that there's a tendency to demonstrate a consistent approach, in this regard.
I could offer up some stuff similar to what's been said, that I think "intelligent" and "smart" aren't quite the same thing, that I think people can be both stupid and smart at the same time. I could even go all D&D and make a designation between "intelligence" and "wisdom" (and I think "wise" has a place in this discussion, regardless). And there's some truth here. In a discussion about person, in relation to very specific things, I'd probably make a distinction. And it would be along the lines of "smart" being more akin to "clever," while "intelligent" would lean towards "learned." For me, "smart" is more raw, is closer to "street smart" as a matter of course, while "intelligent" reflects knowledge and an analytical mind.
But if I'm being honest in my introspection, I'll have to admit that I use "samrt" and "intelligent" interchangeably, more often than not. And if I said to someone something like "you know that Alyssa Milano, she's really smart," and they replied "yes, she's very intelligent," I wouldn't bat an eye, I won't say "NO, she's SMART, not INTELLIGENT."
And in that regard, I give you this:
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 4, 2018 14:37:16 GMT -5
I never watched that stupid "Suits" show about the non-lawyer who got a job as a lawyer at a high-powered firm. But I understand that the premise is that he had a photographic memory and impressed the hell out of partner in an interview by spewing all the law he memorized, and said partner was soooooo impressed he decided that he just HAD to hire this guy even if he wasn't really a lawyer, despite the fact that the firm would be in yuuuuuuge trouble if the deception was ever uncovered. Gasp! Suits is (was) a good show! Well, at least for the first 4 or 5 seasons or so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 14:46:42 GMT -5
I never watched that stupid "Suits" show about the non-lawyer who got a job as a lawyer at a high-powered firm. But I understand that the premise is that he had a photographic memory and impressed the hell out of partner in an interview by spewing all the law he memorized, and said partner was soooooo impressed he decided that he just HAD to hire this guy even if he wasn't really a lawyer, despite the fact that the firm would be in yuuuuuuge trouble if the deception was ever uncovered. Gasp! Suits is (was) a good show! Well, at least for the first 4 or 5 seasons or so. I think when something is in your field, about a world you know, you are less tolerant when it is utterly unrealistic. The only TV depiction involving lawyers I enjoyed at all was law and order -- even there, I far preferred the parts that focused on the police work. The premise of Suits was just so unrealistic I couldn't even. But, like, I LOVED the TV show House (until the last season or two, when it jumped the shark). But a good friend of mine, a doctor who works in a hospital, could not freaking stand it. She said Dr. House would have been fired eleventy million times over, no matter how brilliant he allegedly was. ETA: Don't even get me started on "The Firm." I threw the book against the wall more than once before I finally abandoned it. The author is allegedly a lawyer. But he's got SO many things wrong about what it's like to come out of a top law school and go to a high-powered firm, and it's really irritating if that was your world. Like, the MC is sitting in an interview as a 3L. He's a Harvard Law student, sitting with three partners who not only went to top schools themselves, but also have had long and successful practices. And he's smugly figuring that since his school is ranked one or two notches about theirs on U.S. News and World Report, he's more impressive than they are and he has nothing to prove in that interview. Pfffffft. And then his firm threw a champagne party when he passed the bar. FFS. Passing the bar is EXPECTED. No one throws a party for you. It's if you DON'T pass that it would become notable because then you can't even sign letters without noting that you haven't passed the bar exam. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 4, 2018 14:59:12 GMT -5
I understand. As much as I liked the "forensic psychiatrist" Dr. Wong on L&O: SVU (because I liked the actor), I rolled my eyes are pretty much everything that came out of his mouth. Every time he would comment something like, "the pictures of blood spatter from the crime scene suggest an immature, disorganized mind," I would want to throw my food at the TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 4, 2018 20:13:39 GMT -5
I also think of smart as being more in a category like street smart, book smart, smart in X subject, and intelligence as being more of an overarching, all-encompassing trait. Clever was the first synonym that came to mind for smart. Also, quick, as in quick learner, quick study.
Intelligence has more of an analytical, pondering quality to it.
Thinking back on my own usage of each term, I tend toward "smart" for a young person and "intelligent" for an adult person. So there's also a maturity aspect to it. By the same token, e.g., if a young, smart person communicates at a mature level, they'd qualify as intelligent.
And now I'm wondering how much the ability to communicate has on perceived intelligence.
I agree with rob that if Opty had not posed the question, I may not ever have considered the differences between the terms. So, a very cool thought exercise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 4, 2018 20:38:24 GMT -5
Thanks for the responses so far, everyone!
This question was sparked by a conversation I had with some people about intelligence and how contentious a topic it can be with some people, and I started to think that part of the divide might stem from the differences in how we define it in research versus how it's construed in the general public.
So, I'm thinking of possibly investigating this in the near future.
It seems to me that "smart" and "intelligent" are used interchangeably not quite as often as they're used to mean two distinct things.
Two themes that have emerged (but there's certainly not agreement on) from people's responses this week (here and elsewhere) is that "intelligent" seems more likely to be used to broadly describe someone who is logical and "book smart" (i.e., knows a lot of things and seems intellectual) while "smart" seems more likely to be used to broadly refer to a person's ability to make decisions, problem solve, "think on their feet," etc.
Basically, from what I've noticed so far, is that more people seem to more or less use 1) "smart" to refer (at least to some degree) to the extent to which a person is able to successfully navigate various life scenarios and; 2) "intelligent" to refer to the extent to which a person has vast or specific knowledge of concrete facts. "Smart" seems more likely to be associated with creativity and "intelligent" seems more likely to be associated with "logical."
But, there does some to be a little disagreement, in that some people seem to mostly stick to those broad categories, but they switch the names (smart for intelligent, and vice versa).
That's just the gist I'm getting so far, though, so if anyone strongly disagrees with those notions, please let me know. What I see so far, though, is two (possibly three) broad categories starting to take shape.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 4, 2018 20:55:29 GMT -5
ETA: I wrote this before seeing Opty's post above.
I am not sure if the question here is about different kinds of intelligence (or different applications of intelligence, because I am very skeptical of the current fad for different "kinds" of intelligence, it sounds too much like "Everyone is intelligent in their own special way"...) or different semantic nuances to words like "smart" and "intelligent." I think I do tend to use the words in slightly different ways, but this is more of a linguistic phenomenon than an actual difference in the cognitive abilities expressed by the words. To me, "smart" is more likely to imply "clever, quick-witted, fast on his feet," while "intelligent" is more likely to imply "book-smart, well-educated, thoughtful." But I don't consistently distinguish between the two. I do think there are slightly different ways of being smart/intelligent. For example, my IQ is definitely fairly high. And I am well-read and well-educated. On the other hand, I know I am not a particularly fast thinker. Give me time and I can work out complex problems, but force me to show you how smart I am spontaneously and under time pressure, and I probably won't seem so impressive. My brain has a lot of processing power, but only average bandwidth. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 4, 2018 21:14:48 GMT -5
I am not sure if the question here is about different kinds of intelligence (or different applications of intelligence, because I am very skeptical of the current fad for different "kinds" of intelligence, it sounds too much like "Everyone is intelligent in their own special way"...) Ha, no. Gardner's "theory" of "Multiple Intelligences" is total bullshit, in my opinion, as is so-called "Emotional Intelligence" (I'm not saying that those skills don't exist or aren't important; just that using the word "intelligence" to describe them is misleading bullshit that plays into people's biases). That's part of the debate I was having with someone earlier this week and is what sparked my question here. Yep! Nice. Thanks for this! Part of what I'm trying to see is if people are unknowingly using the two words to distinguish between behaviors that are more related to fluid intelligence from those that are closer to crystalized intelligence or if the common usages of the words mean something significantly different than what researchers mean when they use them (though, we tend not to use the word "smart" in published studies). If so, that gap probably needs to be corrected. Generally, if I do a quick study on this, one goal is to try to help scientists use better / more precise language when communicating to the public. |
|
