Is it truly possible to be smart?

[The Hungoland]

So the basic definition of smart is being quick-witted, but this doesn't make sense because its all relative. The reason i say this is because there is no way to truly be smart because to be considered smart it means you are quick-witted and intelligent, but if a semi smart person was surrounded by unintelligent people this would immediately make them a genius among fools. The definition of intelligent means to be able to acquire and apply learned skills, but this means that everyone is both unintelligent and intelligent at the same moment. This is possible because it is impossible to know everything in existence, so does this make all of humanity fools because in order to be smart you must be intelligent and quick-witted but to both of these things are relative because we are comparing them to ourselves. So in order to be "smart" you must know everything in the universe including thoughts and ideas which is (to our knowledge) impossible meaning no-one can ever be intelligent and to be quick-witted just means your faster at processing something than the person your comparing yourself to. This is why i believe it is impossible to truly be smart.

I might just be crazy so id like to hear your comments and perspective on the question

[MeeNMann]

Hmmm, this is a hard one. I think it is possible to be truly smart, but it can depend on the populous and the IQ's of the people with the highest IQ's.

[The New California Republic]

Yes, but it is relative, it depends where you sit in relation to the average etc.

[Ifreann]

How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

[Trumptonium]

I don't think being quick witted is the basic definition of smart.

Davey Cameron was quick witted but calling him smart is quite a stretch.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

"Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb, it will spend its whole life believing it is stupid"

- Albert Einstein

[Cetacea]

The word sapience is derived from the Latin sapientia, meaning "wisdom" and refers to perception and discernment

Homo Sapiens are suppose to be Wise enough to use what they know to act with discernment. The stuff you know is generally irrelevant, even a Genius can be a fool if they lack the Wisdom to apply their knowledge.

Thus to be Smart is to be Sapient and use your knowledge Wisely

thats what it means to be Human - Homo Sapiens

[Zottistan]

Defining "being smart" as "having intelligence a certain distance above the norm for a population" all you need to do is decide on a metric for intelligence and specify a population to be able to objectively decide whether or not somebody's smart.

[Sovaal]

So the basic definition of smart is being quick-witted, but this doesn't make sense because its all relative. The reason i say this is because there is no way to truly be smart because to be considered smart it means you are quick-witted and intelligent, but if a semi smart person was surrounded by unintelligent people this would immediately make them a genius among fools. The definition of intelligent means to be able to acquire and apply learned skills, but this means that everyone is both unintelligent and intelligent at the same moment. This is possible because it is impossible to know everything in existence, so does this make all of humanity fools because in order to be smart you must be intelligent and quick-witted but to both of these things are relative because we are comparing them to ourselves. So in order to be "smart" you must know everything in the universe including thoughts and ideas which is (to our knowledge) impossible meaning no-one can ever be intelligent and to be quick-witted just means your faster at processing something than the person your comparing yourself to. This is why i believe it is impossible to truly be smart.

I might just be crazy so id like to hear your comments and perspective on the question

Of course it’s relative, and that relativity has nothing to do with being “actually smart”.

[Krasny-Volny]

The definition of smart varies. Smartness and intelligence are relative, which is why IQ tests do a piss poor job of actually measuring one's intelligence.

I knew a guy back in school who could solve some of the most complex math problems you could think of, but struggled with tying his shoes and was utterly incompetent when it came to basic mechanical knowledge.

His polar opposite was a guy who could take any kind of gizmo, manufactured part, or electronics apart, find the problem, fix it himself, and put it back together again. He sucked at math and was constantly in summer school.

And then there was an individual who had an almost useless, yet miraculous ability: he could tell you what day it was for any date, past or future, you named. Like this:

"Howard, what day was August 2, 1952?"

"Saturday"

How the fuck he was able to do this I have no idea. But he was totally unexceptional in every other regard.

Could any of these people be considered smart? Yes and no, depending on the context. If the math wiz had been put to work in a machine shop, he would be the dumbest guy in the room. Ditto for the mechanically minded dude in an advanced calculus class. The truth is few of us are true renaissance men. I went to classes in college where my classmates alternatively found me frustratingly behind the times - the most clueless person there - or exceptionally competent to work with. Depending on who you asked, I could be described as really smart or really dumb. Ditto for the workplace. I would receive a mediocre reference from a boss who found my lack of ability to make snap measurements frustrating (making me severely handicapped in his workplace, where practically everything revolved around on-the-fly metric calculations) but an excellent one from the boss who found my ability to present clear, concise reports making use of statistics an advantage (making me exceptionally competent in that line of work, where that was a great deal of emphasis on paperwork and statistics in particular).

So yeah it's all relative to me.

[Infected Mushroom]

The definition of smart varies. Smartness and intelligence are relative, which is why IQ tests do a piss poor job of actually measuring one's intelligence.

I knew a guy back in school who could solve some of the most complex math problems you could think of, but struggled with tying his shoes and was utterly incompetent when it came to basic mechanical knowledge.

His polar opposite was a guy who could take any kind of gizmo, manufactured part, or electronics apart, find the problem, fix it himself, and put it back together again. He sucked at math and was constantly in summer school.

And then there was an individual who had an almost useless, yet miraculous ability: he could tell you what day it was for any date, past or future, you named. Like this:

"Howard, what day was August 2, 1952?"

"Saturday"

How the fuck he was able to do this I have no idea. But he was totally unexceptional in every other regard.

Could any of these people be considered smart? Yes and no, depending on the context. If the math wiz had been put to work in a machine shop, he would be the dumbest guy in the room. Ditto for the mechanically minded dude in an advanced calculus class. The truth is few of us are true renaissance men. I went to classes in college where my classmates alternatively found me frustratingly behind the times - the most clueless person there - or exceptionally competent to work with. Depending on who you asked, I could be described as really smart or really dumb. Ditto for the workplace. I would receive a mediocre reference from a boss who found my lack of ability to make snap measurements frustrating (making me severely handicapped in his workplace, where practically everything revolved around on-the-fly metric calculations) but an excellent one from the boss who found my ability to present clear, concise reports making use of statistics an advantage (making me exceptionally competent in that line of work, where that was a great deal of emphasis on paperwork and statistics in particular).

So yeah it's all relative to me.

And then there was an individual who had an almost useless, yet miraculous ability: he could tell you what day it was for any date, past or future, you named. Like this:

"Howard, what day was August 2, 1952?"

"Saturday"

How the fuck he was able to do this I have no idea. But he was totally unexceptional in every other regard.

WHAT THE...

WHAT...

THE...

[Infected Mushroom]

In my view:

Knowledgeable - how much knowledge you have total

Knowledge can be general (with respect to every field of human endeavour) or specific (ex you are knowledgeable when it comes to American history, less so when it comes to another subject)

Intelligence/Smartness - How quickly you pick up new skills/knowledge. Like knowledge, this can be General or Specific to an Area but its always relative to some sort of average.

So you can have a very knowledgeable but not so intelligent/smart person... or you can have an intelligent/smart person who is not so knowledgeable (generally or with respect to a subject area). It falls to logic though that if you put someone who is smarter than someone else at X in a class to learn X; the smarter person will become knowledgeable in X faster.

But at any given point in time, smartness/intelligence doesn't necessarily mean you are more knowledgeable. Similarly, someone can be smart/intelligent but very lazy or reluctant to advance in a particular area. Its not that they can't pick it up fast, its that for whatever reason they don't want to or have some kind of psychological factor that prevents them from completely devoting to it.

[Cedoria]

Of course it's posssible. I spend most of my days being smart...

[Zarahosh]

It's been awhile (years, I think) since I've pondered this. But, of what I last remember is the determination that there are three primary types of knowledge, to which I termed "common sense," "common knowledge," and "intelligence." I'd need to think deeper to try to remember exactly what the characteristics and sub-types of each are--something I do not wish to do at 4:12 in the morning. I had observed, however, that very rarely does a person seem to excel at multiple types, and never in all three. Thus, there is likely some barrier at some point preventing the collection and maintenance of knowledge.

As for being "smart" in and of itself, the term is comparative, so, yes, one can truly possibly be "smart." Smart indicates having more knowledge than an assumed or actual datum point/plain.

...Sorry, I'm so tired--had a long day. That'll have to do for my explanation tonight

[Dumb Ideologies]

Not here it isn't.

[Catalonya]

Objectively or subjectively?

[Alvecia]

I’m context, yes.

Objectively, theoretically, with a few base assumptions, also yes.

[Caracasus]

Probably best not to overthink it to be honest. And it's a really bad idea to announce how smart you are - especially on the internet.

[Des-Bal]

Smart is relative but that doesn't make the term meaningless. You compare it against the general population. The problems only really start to creep in with specialization. A theoretical physicist might be able to explain the truest underpinnings of our universe and still need to call a plumber because they're confused and scared. Accept and understand smartness without allowing yourself to become complacent or arrogant.

[Xmara]

I think most people here have got it right when they say that it’s relative.

I had a couple of friend groups in high school. Among one group I was seen as a genius, and among the other group I was probably the dumbest person they knew. My intelligence didn’t change; it was rather how I was perceived.

How do I perceive myself? I’m probably one of the dumbest people I know.

[Mexar]

Everyone I know says I'm smart. Usually they suffix it with @$$, but that's close enough.

[Stellonia]

Everyone I know says I'm smart. Usually they suffix it with @$$, but that's close enough.

A friend of mine says people often call his mouth smart. That sounds like a pretty lofty compliment.

[Major-Tom]

It's possible to be smart relative to other people depending on what it is, I guess?

[Major-Tom]

I think most people here have got it right when they say that it’s relative.

I had a couple of friend groups in high school. Among one group I was seen as a genius, and among the other group I was probably the dumbest person they knew. My intelligence didn’t change; it was rather how I was perceived.

How do I perceive myself? I’m probably one of the dumbest people I know.

On a related note, no matter what setting you're in, never assume you're the smartest in the room, cause you're probably not. And even if you are, you can always learn from others.

[Salus Maior]

It's possible to be smart. It's actually following and acting on said smarts that's the problem.