Being smart

[Petal_Rose]

Can a person be smart by reading books and spent years studying or does a person have to be born smart?

[minorcharacter]

I guess it depends on what you mean when you say smart.  It's a subjective term.  Personally, I think we're all born smart and through reading books and learning big words that are difficult to spell and pronounce you can enhance that intelligence to a comparable quota.  The people who read more challenging books simply have a better grasp of whatever they're reading about; that's all.  They can still be as dumb as a rock when it comes to common matters like asking a woman out.

[Petal_Rose]

I guess it depends on what you mean when you say smart.  It's a subjective term.  Personally, I think we're all born smart and through reading books and learning big words that are difficult to spell and pronounce you can enhance that intelligence to a comparable quota.  The people who read more challenging books simply have a better grasp of whatever they're reading about; that's all.  They can still be as dumb as a rock when it comes to common matters like asking a woman out.

Yes, we are all born with it. And a person can read as much as he/she can in a lifetime but w/o the understanding, they can't really apply this knowledge.

[bulbasaur]

There are some people who are born with an affinity to learn academic topics quickly.  There are some people who can learn beyond the exposed material.  The average person simply has to dedicate more time.  The average person can perform quite well academically.  The average person can perform so well that people may think that he or she is above average. 

The average college student/graduate is probably just an average person.  Dedication.  Opportunity. 

[Petal_Rose]

There are some people who are born with an affinity to learn academic topics quickly.  There are some people who can learn beyond the exposed material.  The average person simply has to dedicate more time.  The average person can perform quite well academically.  The average person can perform so well that people may think that he or she is above average. 

The average college student/graduate is probably just an average person.  Dedication.  Opportunity.

Very well said.

[Petal_Rose]

a person has to be born smart in order to be considered smart.

Can you elaborate more? How do you determine that a person is smart?

[Petal_Rose]

^^ Thank you for rewording. Make much more sense now. Lol Your explanation is very interesting. Okay, i have a question. And im just taking some of your examples here. How about natural born talents? Two can play the same game such as football but one will be better than the other because naturally, he was born with skills. He will progressed more not because he pratice more but because he is just good at it. How do you explain this?

[Petal_Rose]

Thank you for going into so many details and comparisons. I guess the conclusion is that everyone is smart in their own ways. BTW, you spelled the word "weird" wrong twice. 

[Petal_Rose]

^^Thanks! Um, I would not wear a club attire to a Royal Ball party. A more classy and elegant dress would have been more proper. We all are made individually unique.

[FetishDream]

Being smart is a learning condition.  That a ha moment comes into play but usually by the time we figure it out, we old. 

Being smart to me is defined as being clever enough to break all known loopholes and still make it legal.  If you can graduate from college by sleeping on in and messing around in college then you are smart.  After college, if you can slick your way into a high paying job then you are smart.  While in the job market, you get promoted by being sly then you are smart.  All smart people have that advantage thus why making them smart and the rest of us dumb.  ta da 

[bulbasaur]

What people consider "smart" can be subjective.  That being said, some of the arguments are mistaking "knowledge" with "experience."  There is overlap between the two, but there are also many differences. 

[bulbasaur]

So a similar discussion came up at the office, and I had to go into detail between the difference between knowledge and experience.  The athlete example came up, and that is a flawed example.  Let's examine why...

Although it is true that practice makes perfect for an athlete, it is just as important to practice properly.  For example, shooting a basketball.  Let's get two people of similar fitness and athletic background; neither have played basketball before.  We let one study how to shoot from a book for X amount of hours.  We let the other one have the same amount of time head start in the gym.  Which one do you think is going to learn how to shoot faster?  The one who studied shooting form will most likely learn to shoot before the one who had more gym time.  The one who did not study can learn how to shoot, but it will most likely take the person longer.  However, don't take my word for it.  Lombardi says, "Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect."  Or, in regards to basketball, Mullin says, "There are two roads to becoming a good shooter: Learning correct form and making 250-500 shots per day or shooting with bad form and making 2,500-3,000 shots per day."  Even the pros still study tape. 

The cake example is also flawed.  Let's use the same test.  Let's have two people with similar cooking experience.  One is given a cookbook on cakes, and the other is given the same amount of time head start in the kitchen.  The person who studied the cookbook has a better chance of successfully making a cake first, even if it is not on his or her first try. 

Knowledge, experience, and expertise are all related, but they are also quite different.  A coach may not  have the experience of being a good player, but that doesn't discount his expertise and knowledge. 

[Petal_Rose]

^^That is a very interesting observation. I don't know. I've often think why my sister is a better artist than me? She can draw anything. She never had any prior training. Was she born with the skill? Me, I can only draw stick figures? I even took an art class but failed miserably. No matter how I move my brush stroke, I can't draw. I can picture it in my mind. What I want to draw. How each lines will curve. Yet, when I put it into action, it never turns out the way I wanted to. Will practice make me better? Maybe, maybe not.

So, back to being smart. When I was in school. It just seems like other kids can comprehend the stuff being teach better than me. I read the same book as them. We reviewed the same materials. Have the same teacher. Was their learning habits different than mine or are they just born smart so it was just easier for them?

[bulbasaur]

1.  People naturally have an affinity to learn certain topics better.  The reasons range from biological to culture to personal interest.

2.  Good practice and education should make you a better artist.  You may not become as good as your sister, but you can become better than what you are.   For example, let's have you draw a city skyline.  Then, let's have you draw that same city skyline 1000 more times.  Then, let's have an artist give you some tips.  Then, you draw it 1000 more times.  Are you telling me that the 2000th effort will look the same as the 1st effort?  The 2000th effort may not be a professional effort, but practice and education should have some kind of impact.  What would happen if we repeated this process 10,000 times? 

3.  Subjects like art fall in a different category.  Like sports and crafts, there is a physical aspect to it.  Thus, the education also includes some kind of apprenticeship .  Back in the day, people would actually choose to be an apprentice of a well-known artist so that they can learn the techniques.  There is an advantage to learning as opposed to doing it by yourself or relying completely on talent. 

4.  Not all students are created equal.  Success in school is not really based on "smarts."  Even if we assume that students have the same passion to learn and study in a particular course, that does not mean they will perform equally.  Background plays a huge role.  Most people are intellectually average despite the fact that most people think they are intellectually above average. 

^^That is a very interesting observation. I don't know. I've often think why my sister is a better artist than me? She can draw anything. She never had any prior training. Was she born with the skill? Me, I can only draw stick figures? I even took an art class but failed miserably. No matter how I move my brush stroke, I can't draw. I can picture it in my mind. What I want to draw. How each lines will curve. Yet, when I put it into action, it never turns out the way I wanted to. Will practice make me better? Maybe, maybe not.

So, back to being smart. When I was in school. It just seems like other kids can comprehend the stuff being teach better than me. I read the same book as them. We reviewed the same materials. Have the same teacher. Was their learning habits different than mine or are they just born smart so it was just easier for them?

[bulbasaur]

Sheesh, you wrote an essay.  I don't even know where to start  to break this down.

1.  Your cake example is not valid.  Having the recipe from a book can be more useful than just having more time in the kitchen.  Again, take two people of equal ability who both happen to have no knowledge of baking.  Which one do you think has a better chance of being successful?  The one with the recipe?  Or the one with more time in the kitchen? 

2.  Your gun example is also flawed.  Are you saying that the person who studied shooting can never learn how to shoot a gun?  What if the person who had more time with the gun NEVER figures out how to turn off the safety?  Maybe it is another problem with the gun. You can't definitively say that the person with more hands-on time will be better.  In your example, what will happen at 2 months?  3 months?  4 months?  The more educated person has a good chance of surpassing the other. 

3.  Your basketball example is flawed in the similar manner of all your examples.  You are not moving forward.  Time continues.  More knowledge is more advantage.  Your Person B can probably shoot better than Person A at 1 month, but maybe not at 1 year.  Let's say both persons is given a goal: Shoot 80% from the free throw.  One is given a book for a month.  The other has a month head start in the gym.  After 1 month, chances are that neither of them can shoot 80%, but the guy with the head start probably has a higher percentage.  However, which one do you think is going to hit that 80% first?  The guy who read the book has a better chance.

4.  Your fight example doesn't work.  First, you are comparing two different skills, competitive martial arts and fighting.  How well do you think you would have done in a taekwando tournament?  Second, Just because you are a better fighter than him now, that doesn't mean that you will always be.  The chances of him becoming a better fighter is greater because he is studying it, and you are not.  Example, Kimbo Slice.  Put him up against a studied UFC fighter, and it wasn't even close. 

All of your examples suffer the same problem in that you don't move forward.  A person who never had any formal education is a better writer than a kindergartner because of life experience.  Is this a good example to prove that teaching writing is useless?  Is this a good example to say that the kindergartner can never surpass that person?  Of course not.  There is actually a good chance that the kindergartner will become a better writer because he/she studied it.  That doesn't mean that the uneducated person can't be as good or better, it is just a lot harder. 

Again, perfect practice makes perfect, not just practice.