wildcat1337
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Sythe Gold
- 5
- Messages
- 258
Quite frankly, every time someone says "wow, he/she is so smart" I get angry. Reason being, the word "smart" is too subjective to define and apply, thus too subjective to be said.
First off, the word "smart" and "intelligence" have different meanings. Intelligence is ALOT more justifiable, and can be defined as: "ability to learn about, learn from, understand, and interact with one’s environment". In essence, its not how greatly our brain works, but why it works.
The problem starts defining this five letter word: "smart". Accurately defining "smart" is a very complex concept, as the definition has a very optimistic nature to it.
While there may be a clearer agreement as to what constitutes being "smart", the real world aspect is impossible to match to (ill explain below). Accordingly, while defining this word, our perceptions of this word are somewhat common, this fact in its self alone is the only hard strain of supporting evidence to the definition; thus quashing any attempt to rightfully have this word exist.
Also, as human beings, a person may be good at learning calculus and terrible at learning to dance or vice versa. How do you incorporate such a dymanic like this into a single meaning one word? If one wants to pick and chose while compling a definition of the word (through saying "smart" is dependent on what the person can do), the credibility of the world is substantially lowered.
This leads me to my next point, how do you gauge smartness?
Of course the largest answer would be in the form of tests (SAT, ACT, IQ tests, school tests, etc) or quizzes. However, there are too many factors present in those devices to accurately scope smartness: ability to guess, mental fatigue, pressure, the answer being always infront of you, time limits (sometimes) and some generally do not take tests as well as others. Also, can a single number (a score on an IQ test) adequately represent the complex and diverse capabilities of a human being? In a perfect world, these factors would toss tests/quizes right out the window.
Another device people like to hide behind is GPA. "Wow, he has a 5.0 weighted GPA, taking all honor and AP classes, with a dual PHD, he must be smart". Again, just like with tests/quizes, there are factors here which hinder a vanilla defination of smartness. Primarlly, motivation for success can cause an uproar in being "smart", causing a stray away from a just defination. Also note there are plently of other factors, just that is generally the most influential one.
Also, Howard Gardner, an American developmental psychologist developed a scale of intelligence, defining 8 sections of intelligence:
Bodily-kinesthetic, the ability to use one’s physical body well.
Interpersonal, the ability to sense other’s feelings and be in tune with others.
Intrapersonal, self-awareness. The ability to know your own body and mind.
Linguistic, the ability to communicate well, perhaps both orally and in writing, perhaps in several languages.
Logical-mathematical, the ability to learn higher mathematics. The ability to handle complex logical arguments.
Musical, the ability to learn, perform, and compose music.
Naturalistic, the ability to understand different species, recognize patterns in nature, classify natural objects.
Spatial, the ability to know where you are relative to fixed locations. The ability to accomplish tasks requiring three-dimensional visualization and placement of your hands or other parts of your body.
Of course, those were ment to define intelligence, but the words intelligence and smart are linked to each other. The question here is how does a test or gpa measure those all fields?
Since "smart" is too hard to reasonably and fairly define, apply, and measure, this word shouldn't exist.
First off, the word "smart" and "intelligence" have different meanings. Intelligence is ALOT more justifiable, and can be defined as: "ability to learn about, learn from, understand, and interact with one’s environment". In essence, its not how greatly our brain works, but why it works.
The problem starts defining this five letter word: "smart". Accurately defining "smart" is a very complex concept, as the definition has a very optimistic nature to it.
While there may be a clearer agreement as to what constitutes being "smart", the real world aspect is impossible to match to (ill explain below). Accordingly, while defining this word, our perceptions of this word are somewhat common, this fact in its self alone is the only hard strain of supporting evidence to the definition; thus quashing any attempt to rightfully have this word exist.
Also, as human beings, a person may be good at learning calculus and terrible at learning to dance or vice versa. How do you incorporate such a dymanic like this into a single meaning one word? If one wants to pick and chose while compling a definition of the word (through saying "smart" is dependent on what the person can do), the credibility of the world is substantially lowered.
This leads me to my next point, how do you gauge smartness?
Of course the largest answer would be in the form of tests (SAT, ACT, IQ tests, school tests, etc) or quizzes. However, there are too many factors present in those devices to accurately scope smartness: ability to guess, mental fatigue, pressure, the answer being always infront of you, time limits (sometimes) and some generally do not take tests as well as others. Also, can a single number (a score on an IQ test) adequately represent the complex and diverse capabilities of a human being? In a perfect world, these factors would toss tests/quizes right out the window.
Another device people like to hide behind is GPA. "Wow, he has a 5.0 weighted GPA, taking all honor and AP classes, with a dual PHD, he must be smart". Again, just like with tests/quizes, there are factors here which hinder a vanilla defination of smartness. Primarlly, motivation for success can cause an uproar in being "smart", causing a stray away from a just defination. Also note there are plently of other factors, just that is generally the most influential one.
Also, Howard Gardner, an American developmental psychologist developed a scale of intelligence, defining 8 sections of intelligence:
Bodily-kinesthetic, the ability to use one’s physical body well.
Interpersonal, the ability to sense other’s feelings and be in tune with others.
Intrapersonal, self-awareness. The ability to know your own body and mind.
Linguistic, the ability to communicate well, perhaps both orally and in writing, perhaps in several languages.
Logical-mathematical, the ability to learn higher mathematics. The ability to handle complex logical arguments.
Musical, the ability to learn, perform, and compose music.
Naturalistic, the ability to understand different species, recognize patterns in nature, classify natural objects.
Spatial, the ability to know where you are relative to fixed locations. The ability to accomplish tasks requiring three-dimensional visualization and placement of your hands or other parts of your body.
Of course, those were ment to define intelligence, but the words intelligence and smart are linked to each other. The question here is how does a test or gpa measure those all fields?
Since "smart" is too hard to reasonably and fairly define, apply, and measure, this word shouldn't exist.
