How intelligent are you?

[ipumuk]

im pretty smart but i voted for the wrong one accidently can i change it

haha that was a good one.

 

[GameSoul]

I'm smart, depending on the topic. If you mean socially smart, I guess I'm average. It's possible to be smart in one thing and a rock in something else.

 

[cerenade]

I'm in the top 1% on various scales, statewide and nationwide. I've been in specialized schooling since I was 8. I am "smart".

But pride comes before the fall so let me add this: Intelligence is overrated. Most of the supposedly intelligent are nothing more than parrots. They know how to "perform", they give the right responses and make the right motions. I believe that many people confuse efficiency with intellect. The person who navigates through college/work/society with ease, is not necessarily smart. They are simply the best performers. The most intelligent person is the one who forgoes the memorization of law books and medical periodicals and instead opts to create. The poet, the painter, the philosopher. These are the intellectuals; those who are inspired to build anew, while the layman continues running the well weathered path to success and mediocrity.

I've always agreed with this concept, being smart is to be a conformist.

On this topic I choose not to vote due to the fact my truthfulness would seem like I'm full of myself, yet tis the truth that I don't believe I have ever met any person who was more intelligent than myself.

 

[Mangofett]

I'm "school smart" apparently.

I'm in the top 1% on various scales, statewide and nationwide. I've been in specialized schooling since I was 8. I am "smart".

But pride comes before the fall so let me add this: Intelligence is overrated. Most of the supposedly intelligent are nothing more than parrots. They know how to "perform", they give the right responses and make the right motions. I believe that many people confuse efficiency with intellect. The person who navigates through college/work/society with ease, is not necessarily smart. They are simply the best performers. The most intelligent person is the one who forgoes the memorization of law books and medical periodicals and instead opts to create. The poet, the painter, the philosopher. These are the intellectuals; those who are inspired to build anew, while the layman continues running the well weathered path to success and mediocrity.

edit: Those who voted average are probally the smartest people in this thread.

It's late, so sorry if I misinterpret your post... but...

Sounds to me like you're just redefining "smart" in your own way. Society sees "smart" and "intelligent" as a measure of the amount of formulas and definitions you can memorize.

Society dictates the truth, even if its not the truth, unfortunately. An example would be religion or rituals that don't actually do anything.

Though, you're right. These intellectuals are the ones who have the power to change society. And if they are truly smart, they do.

 

[ojsinnerz.]

Slightly above average, but not by much.

 

[yuyuyup]

I'm an idiot and I want to die.

 

[Awdofgum]

I got street smarts...

And a 3.8 GPA in school.

 

[jgu1994]

I'm definitely above average, but i'm no where close to being a genius.

 

[papyrus]

Don't forget about multiple intelligences:

Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")

It depends on what you excel.
Overall i guess I'm average, that's what i think. But a lot of people think I'm smart.

 

[Sephi]

According to Spikey, I'm worse than bobrules and ScuberS combined. But that's just IRC.

I'm like a smart idiot

 

[theman69]

well i can remember things i want to remember i can make people laugh easily but when it comes to it i think im just average but most excel in one or more things in particular and that is just how it is.
"Nothing of me is original, I am the combined effort of everyone I know."
meh being smart is overrated just do what u love and ull be smart at that i can guarantee it

 

[Prophet]

I'm "school smart" apparently.

I'm in the top 1% on various scales, statewide and nationwide. I've been in specialized schooling since I was 8. I am "smart".

But pride comes before the fall so let me add this: Intelligence is overrated. Most of the supposedly intelligent are nothing more than parrots. They know how to "perform", they give the right responses and make the right motions. I believe that many people confuse efficiency with intellect. The person who navigates through college/work/society with ease, is not necessarily smart. They are simply the best performers. The most intelligent person is the one who forgoes the memorization of law books and medical periodicals and instead opts to create. The poet, the painter, the philosopher. These are the intellectuals; those who are inspired to build anew, while the layman continues running the well weathered path to success and mediocrity.

edit: Those who voted average are probally the smartest people in this thread.

It's late, so sorry if I misinterpret your post... but...

Sounds to me like you're just redefining "smart" in your own way. Society sees "smart" and "intelligent" as a measure of the amount of formulas and definitions you can memorize.

Society dictates the truth, even if its not the truth, unfortunately. An example would be religion or rituals that don't actually do anything.

Though, you're right. These intellectuals are the ones who have the power to change society. And if they are truly smart, they do.

I wouldn't call it redefining, more of a reassessment. I am attempting to take the words back to their base meanings. "Intelligence" is derived from the Latin word intellegere, which when translated means "to understand". Now the skeptic would say "Well the people who get ahead in society are the ones who understand the best. They understand their lessons in school, they understand what their bosses are looking for at work... yada yada" This statement is forgivable, but completely wrong. The skeptic is taking "to understand" to mean "to understand what has been imparted to you". "To understand," is quite different. One who understands the form and contours of the world well enough to replicate them in a painting or sculpture is intelligent. Furthermore, look at someone like Einstein. He was taught the basics of mathematics in school but he found the lessons to be insufficient. Why? because he "understood" that what had been imparted to him was incomplete. He saw logical holes, many of which calculus would eventually fill. A child that concerns themselves with the logical progression of theory or practice, is intelligent.

I'll try not to go to deep into this but here is my argument: The first step to true intelligence, begins in understanding that there are things that still remain insufficiently understood. No one is born understanding, all begins in wonder. We are all inquisitive as children and I feel this is the stage where the the truly intelligent are formed. Although very few of us are nurtured in a manner that teaches us to question everything, there are those who are allowed their inquisitive nature and those to stubborn to be stifled by societies inclination to simplify existence. "To understand" we must question, probe, and reflect. To be intelligent is to find your own path to understanding. Which is not to say that books and lessons are useless, far from it. It is completely possible that one could receive an elementary lesson and use it as a springboard from which they might seek greater understanding. But who truly seeks understanding in school? We seek good marks, we seek social standing. We do not wish to understand we wish to win. That is not intelligence, that is competency in a controlled environment. That is the same drive that sets the horse to race. It is no wonder than that in a world built upon competition, true intelligence is becoming rarer by the minute.

Side-note: If anyone actually read all of that, bravo.

 

[papyrus]

I'm "school smart" apparently.

I'm in the top 1% on various scales, statewide and nationwide. I've been in specialized schooling since I was 8. I am "smart".

But pride comes before the fall so let me add this: Intelligence is overrated. Most of the supposedly intelligent are nothing more than parrots. They know how to "perform", they give the right responses and make the right motions. I believe that many people confuse efficiency with intellect. The person who navigates through college/work/society with ease, is not necessarily smart. They are simply the best performers. The most intelligent person is the one who forgoes the memorization of law books and medical periodicals and instead opts to create. The poet, the painter, the philosopher. These are the intellectuals; those who are inspired to build anew, while the layman continues running the well weathered path to success and mediocrity.

edit: Those who voted average are probally the smartest people in this thread.

It's late, so sorry if I misinterpret your post... but...

Sounds to me like you're just redefining "smart" in your own way. Society sees "smart" and "intelligent" as a measure of the amount of formulas and definitions you can memorize.

Society dictates the truth, even if its not the truth, unfortunately. An example would be religion or rituals that don't actually do anything.

Though, you're right. These intellectuals are the ones who have the power to change society. And if they are truly smart, they do.

I wouldn't call it redefining, more of a reassessment. I am attempting to take the words back to their base meanings. "Intelligence" is derived from the Latin word intellegere, which when translated means "to understand". Now the skeptic would say "Well the people who get ahead in society are the ones who understand the best. They understand their lessons in school, they understand what their bosses are looking for at work... yada yada" This statement is forgivable, but completely wrong. The skeptic is taking "to understand" to mean "to understand what has been imparted to you". "To understand," is quite different. One who understands the form and contours of the world well enough to replicate them in a painting or sculpture is intelligent. Furthermore, look at someone like Einstein. He was taught the basics of mathematics in school but he found the lessons to be insufficient. Why? because he "understood" that what had been imparted to him was incomplete. He saw logical holes, many of which calculus would eventually fill. A child that concerns themselves with the logical progression of theory or practice, is intelligent.

I'll try not to go to deep into this but here is my argument: The first step to true intelligence, begins in understanding that there are things that still remain insufficiently understood. No one is born understanding, all begins in wonder. We are all inquisitive as children and I feel this is the stage where the the truly intelligent are formed. Although very few of us are nurtured in a manner that teaches us to question everything, there are those who are allowed their inquisitive nature and those to stubborn to be stifled by societies inclination to simplify existence. "To understand" we must question, probe, and reflect. To be intelligent is to find your own path to understanding. Which is not to say that books and lessons are useless, far from it. It is completely possible that one could receive an elementary lesson and use it as a springboard from which they might seek greater understanding. But who truly seeks understanding in school? We seek good marks, we seek social standing. We do not wish to understand we wish to win. That is not intelligence, that is competency in a controlled environment. That is the same drive that sets the horse to race. It is no wonder than that in a world built upon competition, true intelligence is becoming rarer by the minute.

Side-note: If anyone actually read all of that, bravo.

Your the smartest person here in this thread Prophet, kudos.

 

[theman69]

Prophet all i got from that is when u don't understand and when u ask questions u are a G.

 

[geminisama]

How smart am I? Hmm, I would say intelligent, but not overly smart. In first grade, I was put in a joint 1st/2nd grade class, since me and select others scored high on some test. The same year, I was tested, and put into G.A.T.E.(Gifted and Talented Education), and I went to those classes several times a week, up until the end of 5th grade. In middle school, I was placed in accelerated Math, Reading, and English, but I was taken out of Accelerated math cause I'm not good at it. I was still placed in accelerated English, and Reading until the end of 8th grade. When HS came around, I was placed into Honors English, for the rest of HS.

Now that I'm done ranting, I would still claim I'm just somewhat intelligent. My friends disagree, and call me modest, but I still claim I'm just average on intelligence, cause being literate and having advanced classes in middle and grade school doesn't make me super smart. =/

Oh, and I've never taken an IQ test, but I don't think I'd score that high, lol.

 

[fischju]

3.93 GPA, at least 96th percentile in every standardized test, IQ 155, joining the Navy's Nuclear Power School in May

I love you.




Grades or marks do not determine whether or not you are smart, its job is to help you learn, and people are forgetting this. The problem with society today, is that your intellect is measured by "doing your homework", and how prestigious your background is, and how much is in your wallet.

You underestimate my intelligence, and I'm sorry for giving you numbers you could relate to rather than an essay on how subjective intelligence is along with my life story. Again, my fault you choose to display your 'intelligence' by telling me how useless the information I gave was. Did I mention that I never did homework and got kicked out of school? I can't seem to remember....

 

[Prophet]

Prophet all i got from that is when u don't understand and when u ask questions u are a G.

That doesn't seem to far off from my point, if "G" represents a high level of enlightenment.

QUOTE(fischju @ Aug 18 2008, 10:33 AM) 3.93 GPA, at least 96th percentile in every standardized test, IQ 155, joining the Navy's Nuclear Power School in May

I love you.




Grades or marks do not determine whether or not you are smart, its job is to help you learn, and people are forgetting this. The problem with society today, is that your intellect is measured by "doing your homework", and how prestigious your background is, and how much is in your wallet.

You underestimate my intelligence, and I'm sorry for giving you numbers you could relate to rather than an essay on how subjective intelligence is along with my life story. Again, my fault you choose to display your 'intelligence' by telling me how useless the information I gave was. Did I mention that I never did homework and got kicked out of school? I can't seem to remember....

fischju, your OP was a bit presumptive and elitist. You provided marks as if they were sufficient indicators of your superior intellect; as if we should read them and say, "well he's smart." If you didn't care to discuss what makes you intelligent, perhaps you should have refrained from posting in a thread labeled "How intelligent are you"?

Actually, you know what? I retract all that. I'm obviously "underestimating your intelligence."

Humble much?

 

[Mangofett]

I wouldn't call it redefining, more of a reassessment. I am attempting to take the words back to their base meanings. "Intelligence" is derived from the Latin word intellegere, which when translated means "to understand". Now the skeptic would say "Well the people who get ahead in society are the ones who understand the best. They understand their lessons in school, they understand what their bosses are looking for at work... yada yada" This statement is forgivable, but completely wrong. The skeptic is taking "to understand" to mean "to understand what has been imparted to you". "To understand," is quite different. One who understands the form and contours of the world well enough to replicate them in a painting or sculpture is intelligent. Furthermore, look at someone like Einstein. He was taught the basics of mathematics in school but he found the lessons to be insufficient. Why? because he "understood" that what had been imparted to him was incomplete. He saw logical holes, many of which calculus would eventually fill. A child that concerns themselves with the logical progression of theory or practice, is intelligent.

Wow...

The way I see it is similar: true understanding is the half the difference between someone intelligent and someone efficient... The other half is application.

I can see deep into an object, phrase, idea, and see what it symbolizes, what it means. (You'd be surprised how many people don't even bother...) How can I use this understanding to better understand the world?

So... I'm half-smart. Or half-dumb.

 

[Doomsday Forte]

Something I've noticed while skimming this topic (my apologies for not reading the long responses, but I wanted to make this point before I forgot), but I've seen the word "memorization" dropped more than a few times. Makes me think of something I called one of my teachers on.

You understand that the point of school is (apart from preparing us for the real world) so that we learn, yes? We learn questionable material for use later in life through all of school. But, that's not exactly how it works. Come on, all of you are or were students at one time or another. How does it go when the exam comes up?

A small percentage actually knew the material so when the test came, they would do moderately well based on their own learning, and didn't really have to study.
The rest are varied. They may know some of the material, and will cram hard when it comes to exam time. Or maybe some never even go to class, cram hard for the exam, and disappear until the next one. But the results also vary: Some people will ace the exam this way. Some would have better benefited from the free time by skipping the studying and exam-taking. Either way though, the effect is the same: The material "learned" is quickly dispersed after it no longer needs to be known. Woe be to those students whose exams are cumulative! =P

I don't put a lot of stock into education, sadly. A lot of times, we would always ask our algebra/trig/calc teachers when we'd ever use these lessons in real life. To me, that applies a lot more than just math. And I mostly didn't see a lot of use to a good number of the courses I took. Yeah, I know early years are really only for getting you to decide what you want to be as an adult, and how high school is to prepare you for that route in college, but...

I left high school wanting to become an engineer. I easily had no idea what I was getting into, and going to a school whose engineering program was intentionally designed to weed out the weak...definitely not the smartest decision I've made. I wasn't prepared at all, and I wasted a good deal of time wandering around with majors and stuff. Yet oddly enough, I'm an English major despite the fact that I loathed English most of all in high school.

Who knew?

 

[Searinox]

I've been rated above average both online and IRL by psychologists, though I wouldn't make it something to size up. Intellect capability varies with the mood and fluctuates over time, right now I'm going through a mild depression and I suspect the lack of motivation to do things or even think has lowered my IQ.