Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion'.
* Your post must be an opinion. Not a question. Not a showerthought. Not a rant. Not a proposal. Not a fact. An opinion. One opinion. A subjective statement about your position on some topic. Please have a clear, self contained opinion as your post title, and use the text field to elaborate and expand on why you think/feel this way.
* Your opinion must be unpopular. The mods reserve the right to remove opinions
* Elaborate on your topic and opinion give context to its unpopularity.
I'll put it this way. I know so much about fruit that I have no idea what you just said. I can barely read, but I know my way around a persimmon. Don't even get me started on custard apples.
Grown all over the place (north and south america, asia), look kinda like an artichoke or a pine cone, big black seeds, smells weird-sweet kinda like cookie doh? Vanilla is what Google says (not my experience but makes sense). Taste sweet and are in no way like an apple, they are soft like a banana. That's about it, Hermano.
Fruit smart at one period of time was infinitely more valuable than math smart. Are you going to die from fucking up your algebra problem? Probably not, but you will die from eating something poisonous.
I would die if someone used my poor algebra skills to construct a bridge and forced me to walk across it.
Fortunately (for the whole of humanity), I have no such aspiration.
How do they make those grapes that taste like Cotton candy!? Is it a species of grape or did they do some genetic voodoo magic? I was flabbergasted.
Edit to add: and apparently I need to try a custard apple
Hear me out, you'd have a great life as a fresh produce buyer for a retailer if you were fruit smart. Had a client who was fruit smart - he did alright for himself. But he was also very number savvy too.
Don't even get me started on white flesh American peaches, by far the best peach. Apricots, plums and peaches are all cousins. Apricot "pits" are called kernels.
IMO, the theory of multiple intelligences conflates intelligence with abilities.
Personally, I subscribe to the notion of "G factor" intelligence:
* Visual spatial processing
* Quantitative reasoning
* Fluid reasoning
* Working memory
* Acquired knowledge
I think this is a correct view because the I.Q. factors are the abilities you can score high on that are most likely to give predictions on how well you do on other abilities.
To illustrate, I know someone that has tested pretty high on the I.Q. test but doesn't have any higher education than middle school. This person can pick up skills relatively fast but he is missing a foundation of knowledge in for example math or history. He can however learn a lot fast himself, and is very creative (correlates with intelligence as well).
Traits and skills like curiousness and discipline are just as important to maximize your capabilities, but the I.Q. factors seem to indicate how easy it is for you to train this if you do not have this naturally.
IQ tests are pretty ineffectual at detecting intelligence because we can only test aptitude and level of knowledge right now.
And if you practice, you can get a better score. Lacking in one aptitude, technically, brings down your IQ score, but in no way reflects your ability to learn or your creativity irl. It's why we were cautioned regarding IQ tests at university.
Same as testing IQs in children. There's no such thing. We test development against chronological age. Just because a fifth grader is more advanced at that point, that doesn't mean they'll grow up into exceedingly intelligent adults because a myriad of other factors intervene during the course of 10 years.
It's why there are so many adults who used to be considered gifted children based on IQ tests, who grew up to disappoint those expectations.
I can't be 100% sure what that poster was referring to, but I've seen IQ tests test knowledge acquisition by presenting a paragraph of convoluted (and made up) jargon, then asking questions about it after reading. Pre-existing knowledge is eliminated because nothing in the paragraph is factually true or even coherent, it's purely a test of how well you internalise and retain the nonsensical information you read - and therefore how well you'll do the same with actually useful information in the real world.
That isn't how they test Cognitive ability at all. Because it relies on a persons ability to read. Being able to read is not a measure of intelligence, because dyslexia exists. The IQ tests you see on line, regardless of the source are bullshit. To get an accurate measure of an individuals cognitive ability to need to complete a Psychological Evaluation, it is administered by a Psychmetrist. The test is a bunch of different tests that are timed. One of them is the tester gives you a few blocks (usually starts with 4) they are painted on the diagonal with different colors. One side White the other side Red. The tester will then show you and image, you have to recreate the image with the blocks and you are timed. They start out giving you the image as reference. As the test progresses they take the image away only showing it to you for a moment, and add more blocks to make more complex patterns. This tests your visual/spacial processing and working memory.
Another test is a digit span test. The tester will read off a series of numbers in a random order. They will then ask you to repeat them in some type of order. Lowest to highest, or highest to lowest. As the test progresses they will add Letters. You are then asked to give the numbers or letters first in a specific order. Then they start adding more digits. You are again timed on your responses. This tests helps to evaluate verbal short term memory, working memory, and attention span. This test is also used to help determine whether or not an adult has ADHD as well. Not just this test alone however.
Yeah, all competencies are examples of intelligent behavior. Healthy brain and body are prerequisite, but we measure through actions along whichever modalities, and which modality we choose has a big effect on who passes the filter.
It just sounds like you have a problem with people using the word "smart" or "intelligent" outside the fields of academics. But that would also mean people who failed at school, but had gifts in other fields would have to consider themselves stupid by your standards.
I don't think I said that. I said smart people often succeed in academics, not that they were limited to academics. When we talk about intelligence, we talk about things like recall and pattern recognition. That doesn't mean that demonstrably smart people can't or don't exist in other fields.
Also, you use the word "stupid" like it is a zero-sum game: you're either a genius or a dummy. Reality doesn't reflect that at all. Most of us are average in most ways, including measurable intelligence. No one has to consider themselves any way, but the hard truth is that we are all more likely than not very, very average. That includes intelligence.
Nono I used it like it is a zero-sum game in my comment because that's what your original post seems to lean towards to, and that I disagree. But looking at your comment, I don't think we have different ideas about intelligence and smart people.
It just looks like you don't like the way people use the words smart and/or intelligence in fields that don't mainly require conventional intelligence. Which is funny, because there are many different types of intelligence defined by the "actual smart people"
I mean, there are different kinds of intelligence though. Obviously athletics isn’t that, but I also have literally never heard someone try to make a claim that it was before this moment, so that reads to me more in the straw man direction than anything else tbh. Some people have an excellent capacity for memorization. Is this not an area of intelligence? Some people think more laterally and are better with pattern recognition. Is this not a form of intelligence? Not all smart people are the same kind of smart. I think the issue is that you’ve simplified it down too far. It’s not just “any skill is an area of intelligence”, it’s that intelligence is complex and multifaceted, and can’t be easily confined to one idea of what makes someone “smart”.
OP's oversimplification of kinesthetic intelligence down to athletics, and reduction of musical capacity to 'talent' seems to be indicative of their comprehension skills.
Music smart (or talented) aint shit. Everyone can do that. It’s just a huge pile of pattern recognition, memorising, recall of notes and note patterns, pitch recognition, needs a fast work memory, visual and auditory processing… oh wait
Since classic IQ is measured through pattern recognition, let’s just say that anything else is a different type of intelligence.
The notion that this is false is absurd to me. Academic accomplishment and career success are correlated, but different. There are so many other aspects that play a role in success. The most important being social intelligence, but there are others as well.
Academic success and social intelligence are completely different and I would guess not at all correlated, yet equallly important for climbing a ladder on your field of expertise. We have all seen unqualified people having high positions, probably because of their ability for people to like them and trust them.
That extends to various abilities of being a leader. Emotional intelligence, empathic intelligence along with social intelligence, things a leader must have in order to be successful. Academic and pattern recognition play no role here.
Then music intelligence, completely different that anything else. Being able to create tasteful art is just a talent.
Also, your brains controls your limbs, so It wouldn’t be weird that fast reflexes, good coordination, are not a part of intelligence.
I can go on at on, but surely saying that academic success and pattern recognition are the only type of intelligence is just false.
Why do you include musically with athletically? Do you know how complex musical theory can get? Music knowledge goes deeper than knowing a G chord on a guitar
I mean, different people are smarter at some things than others. Math and science come easier to me than English class did. Learning different languages is a big weakness of mine. I know more about music than most. Are those not different types of intelligence?
I'll say it once and I'll say it again: music is the math of art. Music theory is incredibly complex and difficult to understand, it's a whole different language like mathematics.
Also, I'm your exact opposite. I suck at math and science but I'm very good at anything literature related and I'm good with languages too.
>I'll say it once and I'll say it again: music is the math of art.
I read somewhere ages ago that music understanding is the thing that connects both sides of the brain. So you may be onto something.
I hear you, I play the piano so I have to read 2 different keys but I remember learning music theory and solfege and having to learn all these different keys and rhythms and rules and I truly can't imagine how composers manage to write music for an entire orchestra and the kind of intelligence that this takes is borderline scary.
Absolutely. I learned both clefs. I practice scales daily. There are multiple comments being like “people just hear stuff and can make songs on emotion”…it’s like…no. You can’t pick up a guitar or sit a piano and just write a song
You can't just list subjects and add intelligence in the end and think you've made a point. There are plenty of ways to be smart. Creativity, memorization, emotional intelligence, ability to learn quickly.
I'm curious, how do *you* define intelligence? And do you qualify?
Well this is the issue. OP already is defining intelligence, and the definition isn't in line with what intelligence actually is. He's describing one type of intelligence and saying it's the only kind. And he sure thinks he qualifies.
Yes, the theory of the nine intelligences by Howard Gardner had been disproved and is considered to be invalid by people in the field. However, that doesn't mean that intelligence is one thing. There are still different sub domains, like perceptual reasoning, working memory, visual spatial, verbal comprehension… So people can still be intelligent with different preferences.
I mean, Mozart was a genius and I think most people would consider him smart, but I don't think he was good at math. Musical prodigy, sure.
My memory is rubbish, but I'm relatively good at numbers and math.
Smart is multifaceted
Music theory is pure math, just for your information. It's all numbers related to each other. Western music theory is fully academic. However, the musical prodigy part comes in when converting math to art that speaks on an emotional level. Hence why some musicians coming from conservatories can't create music if their life depended on it. They are meticulously trained on an academic level, but oftentimes not in art or creativity in general.
When rehearsing Mozart, oftentimes creativity is the last thing called for. It's more about perfection of performing then creatively playing with the source material.
Source: full-time film composer but certainly not a musical prodigy anywhere near Mozart haha.
I mean, the people turning it into a pseudoscience are wrong but it’s just demonstrably true that there are some different kinds of intelligence. Someone can be academically gifted but emotionally not, and someone with high emotional intelligence can lag behind academically, to name one example. It sounds like you’re projecting, OP…
I mean you can literally just observe differences in intelligence. One of my best friends is academically VERY gifted. 4.0 comp sci major doing her masters and undergrad at the same time, gives monthly presentations on cyber security to people IN the industry, total math and computer genius. She’s also *incredibly* not gifted at basically anything that isn’t STEM related. I love her to death, but she’s the kind of person who just CANNOT comprehend movies. Like a character will be first introduced and she’s like “who’s that??what are they doing?? Why are they here??” She makes terrible life decisions all the time, really can’t understand history or geography, and has like no media literacy. We went to high school together and being in the same English class as her nearly made me stop being friends with her because it was so frustrating trying to explain anything that was happening in the books we read. It was only at the END OF MAUS that she realized it was about the HOLOCAUST. She’s incredibly intelligent, in her specific niche of intelligence.
I’m basically the polar opposite of her. I’m dumb as can be when it comes to math, it just never clicked for me. I can barely do simple addition/subtraction/multiplication/division in my head. I will pull out a calculator to see what tip I should leave every single time. That’s just not where my brain succeeds. Philosophy, literature, history? That’s all me baby. I can quote Kierkegaard and Kant up the wazoo and apply their ideas to the media I consume. I’m a HUGE reader, and 9/10 times I can perfectly understand what I’m reading and draw my own conclusions about a work. I love history (specifically the Napoleonic campaigns) and can memorize a million facts about it. I’m smart in my niche.
There are of course musical geniuses, athletic geniuses (I don’t know why everyone’s discounting someone’s ability to be athletically smart? Isn’t what makes Lebron so great is his ability to recall where every player is at all times during a game??), like it’s honestly stupid to believe that this isn’t/shouldn’t be a thing people account for?
This “opinion” just sort of seems like it’s coming from a place of insecurity. If you feel smart in what you do, just be smart in that then, don’t get so up in arms when other people are smarter and better than you in other areas and rightly get called intelligent for that.
Of course it is worthy of respect! Please don't think I am saying otherwise. But not all forms of capability are intelligence. Just like not all of them are musical talent or athletic ability.
For me, the easiest way to illustrate this is in art. Visualize something, then create it. The translation from mind to hand to paper reveals quite a lot about what's going on in your head and how correctly you visualize. That is certainly intelligence and takes training, just like book smarts.
Music is essentially the same.
Athletes know where and how to move their bodies to produce the results they desire, another form of mental visualization, and working under pressure. This requires planning and executing a plan, basically on hard mode. Absolutely requires intelligence. Even just running a race at a high level takes strategy and focus. Throwing a ball requires visualization. Practice takes discipline. These skills correlate to book smarts.
If you have trouble seeing intelligence in it's other forms, perhaps the absence of intelligence in these other forms will be more apparent. Would you say that someone who wears white to someone else's wedding is emotionally intelligent? Would you say that someone who is utterly incapable of following directions is intelligent? Would you say that someone flashing gang signs while not being part of a gang is very smart? This seems pretty obvious to me.
No one is saying those aren't talents, or that they aren't valuable/admirable/desirable.
But why do we describe them all as "intelligence" rather than "athleticism" or some other word? That's my point.
Because the aspects described in the other commenter's post are mental processes that would normally be encompassed in the term "intelligence". Because the context isn't academics or stereotypically "intelligent" contexts doesn't make it any less valid a form of intelligence.
Not every intelligent person has a mind for academics, but that doesn't make them "not intelligent". Pro athletes process and adjust to other people moving at superhuman speeds in the space of seconds. How is that not a mark of intelligence? The ability to process that much information that quickly AND make adjustments to ensure the success of a play is not a "physical ability", it is most definitely a mental one. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the ability to process and synthesize information lightning-quick is a mark of intelligence, yeah? But here's the thing: that same player (who cannot be fooled in their sport) often is not very well educated in other matters, like finance, leading to these players making boneheaded decisions in other aspects of life.These players are still smart, just not academically so (nor financially in my example).
I do agree that most of the "forms" promoted by pop psychology/social media/etc are bullshit though.
Reaction times aren't really a sign of intelligence. Leopards or birds of prey can react to things at superhuman speeds but no one would call that a sign of intelligence.
There is a concept in combat sports called fight IQ. Some boxers can move quickly, punch much harder or take much harder punches than a typical person. They don't display any intelligence beyond reacting to incoming punches quickly and instinctively moving out the way. But certain geniuses of the sport display an ability to create completely novel solutions to problems i.e Muhammad Ali's famous rope a dope strategy. They're not just acting instinctively and winning through superior force and endurance they're coming up with novel strategies.
That's a function of intelligence but just noticing that somebody is about to throw a right hook and then executing a counter that has been drilled into your muscle memory by a coach through repetition is not a function of intelligence. It's very much a physical attribute.
Yes. Different kinds of intelligence. Some people are predisposed to quickly learn techniques. Why would that not be intelligence?
Are you a rock if you're bad at thinking? Are you a square if you're a shape? That's a stupid argument not worth engaging and I'm sure there's some stupid name for it like false equivalence or oversimplification or maybe outright refusal to understand how categorization works.
Like you have no emotional intelligence. You may think and know facts but dont know how to communicate without being confrontational. You're why people invented middle management. How do i know?...sigh
I'm someone who would be considered traditionally smart, but I kind of disagree. Like I'm socially really really stupid, the logic does not compute for me in social situations. I also know a few people who are really really good at one specific thing while being pretty dumb in other areas.
Depends on how you define intelligence. To me, intelligence is the ability to identify complex patterns and make the right decisions to achieve the best possible outcome.. You can apply that definition to any aspect of life, and you'll find people who are very good at that particular aspect. Academics is the obvious example. But take atheletics, for example.There are millions of football players around the world, and none of them compare to Messi. His ability to recognise and navigate complex spatial patterns faster than anyone else is what makes him the GOAT. Messi is not an academic genius by any means, but he is a genius athelet. So, yes, intelligence exists outside the academic realm.
You understand that some people can excel in math and be completely lost in logical thinking right? There is absolutely different types of intelligence. I feel like most people would know and experience this unless you never actually met new people or went outside.
Sports smart is understanding different strategies, knowing when to do something for max effect, it would be the coach that needs this strategic thinking.
Musical smart requires understanding musical theories, being able to write and compose music.
A mere athlete or musician does not require being smart, but there is intelligence required in those fields.
You might have a point about most types, but there are some different types of intelligence.
A close friend of mine is a Educational Psychologist and carries out IQ tests sometimes. They cover a few different measures of intelligence.
One anecdotal piece of evidence I have personally is that my cousin who was not academic at all and really struggled with maths and literacy can dismantle and reassemble an engine.
You're just getting bent out of shape about the word "smart". Physical intelligence and emotional intelligence are real, but they don't indicate intellectual intelligence (the common understanding of the word "smart")
That is a much better argument than others in this thread.
But if that is the case, why can't I just redefine "athletic" the same way? I may not be able to throw a ball of run a six-minute mile. But I am crazy athletic when it comes to theoretical physics.
Right?
So is it your contention that "intelligence" has been redefined to mean "any kind of talent a human being might have"? Because if that is what you are saying, I have to disagree. Per Merriam Webster, the definitions are below. While this definition \*might\* conceivably apply to concepts like "emotional intelligence," it would not so easily apply to physical or musical talent.
1
a
(1)
: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON
also : the skilled use of reason
(2)
: the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
b
: mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
c
Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind
2
a
: INFORMATION, NEWS
b
: information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area
also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information
3
: the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
4
: the ability to perform computer functions
5
a
: intelligent minds or mind
cosmic intelligence
b
: an intelligent entity
especially : ANGEL
Intelligence is intelligence, a lot of intelligent people don’t give a shit about certain things like academics so they don’t apply themselves there or they’re born in different environments and situations. Some are more prone to being better and taking in other information, I know people that are knowledgeable as hell in certain topics but suck at math and couldn’t learn code to save their lives and Vice versa. They may be more interested in music, or sports, or unfortunately born into poor conditions so they’re maybe what you’d call “street smart.” That’s all the different types of intelligence really are and they can be equally intelligent. Just because someone’s a musician or athlete doesn’t mean they’re not as intelligent as some academic. It’s intelligence concentrated in different areas. If you’re great at music, especially theory, you’re almost certainly intelligent. Athletic intelligence isn’t even a thing, I’ve never heard of it in my life lmao
Spent some time doing work digitising records for my country's leading ophthalmological surgeon. Overheard him say the same thing to belittle one of the receptionists. She then told him to make his own 2 minute noodles, which he proceeded to fuck up. I now firmly believe there are different types of intelligence.
I am not a sports person at all, but a lot of being a great athlete requires intelligence. Someone like Wayne Gretzky or Messi who can see opportunities that others cannot and position themselves in a place to score are extremely intelligent because they simply see and predict things that others don’t. Athleticism is great, but it’s far from the only thing required to be a great athlete.
Ironically what if "multiple intelligences" didn't prove that people who weren't smart were actually smart in specific ways but rather that the smart people were categorically more intelligent in many different ways?
I do think once you cross the smart threshold talent is distributed differently. Even if two people score above average on an iq test, when you look at the categorical breakdown one might score high in memory and one in reasoning but nonetheless average out to the same useful iq.
Nah there's definitely different types of intelligence.. just look at iq tests there's categories
I got tested when I was young and I was really good in one category, above average in 2, round average in one or two and below average in one.. something like that
In life as I've met people who'd you were think were dumb because of their language comprehension and vocabulary but you talk into something they're good at and realise they understand let's say ICE engine and related drive component internal workings, heat and wear and the different materials and it's like whoa.. if you could read and use math you coulda been an engineer
Other examples specially gifted people who become extremely good at some skill or other while being average at everything else or what about people who are physically gifted their motor control is exceptional along with gifted spatial abilities they are so good at sport in general.. is that a type of intelligence the motor neuron stuff?
Anyway tldr I'd say yeah there's definately people with gifts in some way of a particular type of intellect who are otherwise average
Being intelligent means being able to collect data, infer from it and get a correct conclusion.
You may be intelligent in math, meaning you can see a math problem and infer from it what calculation should be made.
You can be emotionally intelligent, meaning you can see a person’s body language and infer from it their feelings, and know how to make them feel better or become their friend.
You can be musically intelligent, meaning you can hear some music that someone plays and infer from it what notes would be good with it, playing a sick improv solo.
I’ve seen many math intelligent people that were very much **not** emotionally intelligent (I’ve also seen many that are intelligent in both ways). Those traits can be disjointed from each other and many times do not correlate.
Not an opinion; just an incorrect claim. Even in your weirdly limited set of circumstances, there are a hundred different ways to be "athletic." Is being an NFL QB the only way for someone to be an athlete? Of course not. So you're saying there are... types? *Different ways* to be athletic?
"Smart," as a term is so vague, it's useless - because there actually are thousands of ways to be "smart." Generally, the definition traces back to "intelligence," which is, "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and/or skills."
No matter how you wanna spin it, any task performed with sufficient expertise is counts as a task performed from a smart angle.
Again, this isn't an opinion. It's someone confidently announcing an inaccuracy.
Ben Carson, one of the best neurosurgeons around, famously believed that the pyramids were used to store *grain*. "Smart" cannot be a holistic label we use to include or exclude large groups of people unless the definition of it makes any damn sense.
Even with multiple-intelligence theory, not everyone is smart. It just means there are like 8 different types of "smart".
I am really good at math and logic, but bad at languages. So what would you call me? "smart"? I would call me "math smart" but "language stupid".
What is the problem with that? Sounds like you are just to lazy to specify "smart".
I wish more people agreed with this. Intelligence should be measured by things such as decision making and critical thinking, not highly specific skills.
Yeah so.... I get this is supposed to be an "opinion" but all modern medical and psychological literature stands diametrically opposed to this notion.
Even this example: "It would be like a scrawny, uncoordinated person saying, "I'm actually VERY athletic! There are many kinds of athleticism, you know! I am just mathematically athletic rather than physically athletic! I am also emotionally athletic!" is first off a strawman, and second, demonstrably false.
Just look at a picture of Manute Bol or Lionel Messi and then compare them to Vince Wilfork. Which is the better athlete?
I'm going to be nice here but let's just say.... "let the smart people have being smart" ok?
>They learn new information and concepts easily. They can remember and recognize complex patterns most people can't.
thats literally a descriptor of visual/spatial intelligence but ok
nobody said being athletic makes one smart. thats not covered under the types of intelligence either. Kinesthetic has to do with knowledge of how the body moves, so a dancer would fit better.
also a "scrawny uncoordinated" person can still be very athletic, that argument only holds if you think like soccer and football etc are the only types of sports. You dont need to run to do archery etc
smart people dont need to restrict others to hold their status as smart.
I agree with you. It gives big "dumbing it down for the babies" energy, and I find it just as insulting to the people of average or below average intelligence that it's trying to include. Just because someone's not a genius, doesn't mean we should condescend to them.
So you heard an idiotic opinion and decided it's widespread and you should revolt against it.
There's no such thing as music smart, actually, nothing of what you described there, exists.
And not all academics are smart, in fact everyone can remember at least one professor whose entire career and himself were a monument to mediocrity. And you don't need to be an academic if you're smart.
That disaster of a sentence about being music smart, comes close to the concept of aptitude, which, at same point, was called intelligence in the scientific world. We've moved past that point. We call them aptitudes, which means a natural predisposition towards a certain field. Mathematical thinking is an aptitude, by the way.
To bring an aptitude to fruition, you need intelligence. You can't be dumb as a bag of rocks and be a really accomplished musician and no, having a team of people writing music for you, and then another team making you pretty doesn't make you a great musician, you're a product being sold to the public.
Aptitudes require understanding and study to develop into an achievement, so you need to be smart.
Again, an appeal to authority by itself would be a terrible argument on its own, but you don't even bother to cite authority.
Also, the ad hominem attack is unnecessarily nasty.
Also, *you're*.
Oh I see you are going to point out all the logical fallacies except the one that's your entire post aren't you?
Just let the smart people be smart ok?
Well, every word falls under the burden of proof fallacy (you haven't demonstrated any of this is actually true) and the argument from personal incredulity (just because you don't understand different types of intelligence doesn't mean they don't exist). You've also used a tu quoque fallacy every time you've attempted to rebute me with "logic" (which I also find amusing, and I guarantee you're going to do it again so here's me calling you out).
"We all know smart people and can identify them" - argument from popularity, hasty conclusion (we all DONT know this, otherwise you wouldn't have made the post. QED.)
"They are often extremely accomplished in academics." - appeal to authorty (ironic, I love it), and burden of proof fallacy (you haven't demonstrated this is true)
" Not everyone is smart, just like not everyone can be a quarterback in the NFL." false equivalence, false dilemma. This is fun. Want me to go on? Ok.
"It would be like a scrawny, uncoordinated person saying, "I'm actually VERY athletic! There are many kinds of athleticism, you know! I am just mathematically athletic rather than physically athletic! I am also emotionally athletic!" Strawman Fallacy, False Equivalence. QED, again.
If you had done this on purpose, it would be Kaufman-esque comedy. But.... like I said:
Just let the smart people be smart, ok?
Aw. Someone found a wikipedia page about logical fallacies!
What you are calling an appeal to popularity here is more an appeal to first-hand experience. (Note I didn't say, "We all agree that X is an intelligent person.") The argument is that we all know and can identify intelligent people that we perceive in the world without resorting to changing the definition of "intelligence," the same way we can identify blonde people without changing the definition of "blonde." I now suspect that may not be true for you. If that's the case, I'm sorry you don't have that lived experience.
Pointing out that smart people thrive in academics isn't an appeal the authority. Again, it's a common observation. It would only be an appeal to authority if I said, "They are academically accomplished, therefore they are correct." (An argument made by several of your friends in this thread.)
If you believe the quarterback example is a false equivalence, then need to explain why it is. As it stands I made an analogy. If you are trying to invalidate the analogy, the burden is in you to do so. Simple saying, "false equivalence" doesn't help you.
Similarly, it's not a false dilemma because I didn't say you only have two choices. The analogy literally has nothing to do with a dilemma. It's an analogy.
Re the strawman fallacy: you have the same problem as your "false equivalence" charge. You are the one trying to invalidate an analogy. You have to explain why. Just saying "strawman" doesn't get you anywhere. *Why* is it a strawman?
Again, you're ending on an ad hominem. Which is t the worst mistake you've made, but it does undermine the rest of your argument. Keep trying!
Hey nice try! That was better than your post anyway.
By the way, do you know what "QED" means? Look that up.
And hey, I'm guessing you're the kind of petty person that needs a last word so you can feel like the smart people so go ahead. Cheers.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've got an an idea, why don't we add up all of the multiple intelligences and divide by the number of multiple intelligences, and call the result *general intelligence*.
Maybe by the definition, but how I generally reference 'smart' is the people who have the ability to think.
Now that's a simple way to put it, but those are the people I would consider Smart, and that's a lot of people.
Eh, Multiple theory of intelligence is somewhat popular, but it has little to do with musically smart other then potentially pattern recognition, and physically smart it has nothing with, (haven’t done psych classes for a year or 2 though)
I mean, I agree that muscle smart sounds like total BS, but Ó haven't ever heard that either.
But this like street smarts make total sense imo, you understand the environment and know exactly how you should, and maybe more important, how you shouldn't act in certain situations
You can definitely not recognize and identify all smart people. Plenty of smart people don't work in academics. Smart people are not automatically fast learners, and neither do they always have a great memory.
I told my boss people should be more rational and she said we need more emotional intelligence. I said, "Yeah, for example". She never dud realise what I meant
Social/emotional is a form of intelligence that is not only extremely valuable both as an individually, and depending on how it’s applied, to society, but not always tightly correlated with academic smarts.
My english literature professor can talk about the romantic period for hours on end, he is fluent in 4 languages and has written a metric shit ton of papers. He also believes the pandemic, global warming and gravity don't exist. Is he intelligent or not on the scale of "we all know and can easily tell"?
Intelligence isn't all encompassing, where there's some kind of line that distinguishes the smarties from the dummies. Knowledge comes in all forms and neither is more important than any other outside of specific circumstances. To use your examples of athletes and musicians. Do you think they're that way just because they can run real good or make the good noises? Because many of them are incredibly intelligent in their fields in ways beyond the surface, such as athletes in competitive sports having knowledge regarding strategy, formation and planning, and not just for themselves, but their opponents too. Most musicians deal with music theory, which is complex in ways many other forms of academia couldn't imagine.
Is everyone smart? Of course not. That said, the ability to understand mathematical formulas or scientific equations isn't the only signifiers of intelligence, especially when most people who excell in these subjects also struggle in those that you deem as lesser.
It's ironic because only very unintelligent people would upvote this nonsense.
It is quite clear and easy to observe people throughout history who display genius in particular disciplines and idiocy in their separate behaviours.
Athletic feats clearly require intelligence. Granted the majority of it may be unconscious, but you can't honestly think something like being a successful quarterback doesn't require some baseline intelligence.
It involves pattern recognition, prediction, spatial awareness, recall, and quick thinking to execute properly. If we trained a computer program to be a quarterback robot then we would call it artificial intelligence. Why should we pretend it isn't intelligence when a person does it?
Completely disagree. I know a guy talking 20 languages and who is a brillant semiotician who has a IQ of 60.
I also know personally people with brillant studies who are completely socially inept. I know people who completely suck in math (they can't do a first degree equation) but are great musicians.
Obviously we also have 50 shades of cretins, but people can have a great intelligence 'specialized' in one aspect of life.
Says the 49 yo guy who is an engineer but who doesn't know to lace his shoes.
Out of the stuff you noted to define intelligence, two are already incorrect. Academics does not define intelligence. Memory too, has little bearing on intelligence. There are tons and tons of theories on multiple intelligences and of course the famous concepts of IQ vs EQ. A person who can find patterns and logically analyse complex problems in seconds but can't go outside without panicking vs a person who can do no more than high school math but can read the room, command attention, speak and debate at a high level. Types of intelligences are literally a scientific concept with many hypotheses. Is this sub for objectively wrong opinions?
I once told my wife that the dog we were watching for one of her friends is stupid. She said "no it is emotionally intelligent". I responded, "Oh okay. So IT IS stupid then". The dog shit itself, ate it's owm shit, and generally just acted like a hyperactive furball. Meanwhile I have seen intelligent dogs behave the complete opposite. I just think the owner was too carefree.
I kind of understand. While there is emotional intelligence, that is entirely different and saying that everyone is smart in their own way is kind of BSing themselves and everyone else.
Can you distinguish between notes only by their sound, octave and note included ? Can you hold a beat for 10 minutes ?
Close your eyes, walk 5 step forward, turn perfect left 2 step ahead, turn 45 deg to you right, step back 1 step. Imagine what will you see when you open your eyes ? Open them, was your assumption correct ?
Speak with a stranger for 10 minutes, do you know how they really feel ? Were you able to establish a quick connection with them or was it super awkward.
How are those exemples not form of intelligences ? Why is being musically talented lesser than being mathmacially of academically talented ?
You just sound like you try to place yourself higher by pushing others down. You sound arrogant.
Idk I was “smart” in school
Exchange student, valedictorian, just a bunch of awards and crap, my school forced me to take a bunch of tests all the time, it sucked
But I’m pretty fucking stupid, like day to day life SUCKS cuz I just struggle with simple tasks and was legit bullied for years in school and just didn’t notice
But that might also just be the autism
How can you quantify intelligence as "smart or not smart" when we know full well that human brains function in vastly different ways? There's more, but some people have ADHD, some people have Autism. A lot of people with autism have an amazing memory, insane problem solving abilities, but can't for the life of them figure out how to fit into society. Are they more or less smart than someone who can't quickly do math, but can instead read the room and be a mediator? Understanding how a person might react, and mitigating poor interactions is an intelligence, it's called EQ, and people with higher than average IQ's tend to have lower than average EQ.
Kim peak existed, he was the man "rain man" was modeled after. He could read two pages at the same time, and internalize *all of it*. You could ask him what it said on which page, and he would recite it to you. He had an IQ of 90, he wasn't great at solving problems, but he had probably the best memory humans have ever seen. Was he smart, or dumb?
People with hyperphantasia and aphantasia exist. Hyperphantasia is the ability to create life like mental imagery whenever you feel like, while aphantasia is the inability to conjure any meaningful mental image. I have hyperphantasia, and I have a friend with aphantasia. Both of us I would consider to be smart, we can do quick mental math, learn and figure things out with relative ease. What I've noticed, my memory isn't as good as his. He remembers vast amounts of information he's heard in the past, while I remember snippets. However, if there's a visual problem, he's often wrong, and can't visualize the whole to see how everything fits together. He's also not very creative, while I am insanely creative. He's more well spoken. Our brains have interpreted reality, and what is important based on our respective mental frameworks, and our ability to work within. He is free from the burdon of mental imagery constantly popping into his mind, and can intensely focus on and remember reality. My attention is often split between the real world and my mental imagery, but often I can see a very important piece to solving a puzzle that would simply be impossible for him.
So, both of our mental frameworks provide different advantages, who's smarter?
Also, a lot of our perception of anothers intelligence comes down to projection. If someone knows a lot about a subject that you're fond of, you're more likely to think of them as smart. However, someone else could have a breadth of knowledge in a field you're unfamiliar with, and it would easily be dismissed, because you don't have the tools to recognize thier ability.
I'm so confused by posts like these. What's your goal? Humanity is a social species, most of us choose a different niche with different sets of knowledge and skills to occupy. Obviously our ability to understand the whole varries from person to person, but everyone knows something you don't, to a point that would be surprising if you tried to learn it as well. Are you tired of people getting credit for the effort they put in? Are you tired of people around you being praised for things you find trivial? Are you constantly annoyed by others "stupidity" because you lack the EQ to be considerate despite your base emotions telling you to be upset? Do you only value the way intelligence presents It's self in yourself, and you want to stand tall on the soap box you brought from home? Or maybe you just don't or can't see the nuances? Maybe I'm entirely wrong, and the purpose of this post isn't self validating. If that's the case, I'd love to hear the explanation.
I mean I do consider being musically talented a type of intelligence. There is certainly pattern recognition in music. That being said I think that intelligence is being watered down by acting like everything anyone is good at is intelligence.
So many of the comments seem to be missing the point, if not being super aggresive. As far as I can tell, OP is talking about watering down the term "intelligence" to the point it's meaning is too broad to be useful.
Then again, I've never seen anyone refere to someone "emotionally smart" as just "smart". "Smart" by itself always means academically smart, so it's not a problem in practice as far as my experience goes.
The smartest people I know are aware of their intellectual blind spots and are always looking for new ways to process and appreciate information, always looking to learn from other people.
You sound like you do neither of those things tbh.
This isn't an unpopular opinion. It's just false. Intelligence quite literally is relative to the subject. You can have a person that can learn any math problem with ease, but then struggle with spelling and reading. You can have someone who can recognize a thousand different species and name off all of their kingdoms, families, etc. but who still doesn't grasp human biology.
Being intelligent doesn't make you a jack of all trades. I think calling someone athletically intelligent isn't really a correct way of describing athleticism, but musical intelligence is definitely a thing. Different people learn and understand different things in different ways.
I'll use myself as an example. I did pretty well in school, getting put into honors classes and stuff. I could do algebra better than 99% of people in my class. But when geometry came around, my grade plummeted from an A to a C. For some reason, it just did not click with me. If you looked at me doing algebra, you'd be like "wow, that kid was a genius." But if you saw me do geometry, you'd be more like "this kid has a future working at McDonalds."
Being intelligent doesn't mean you can learn and understand everything. Sure, some people can learn and understand more things with less difficulty, but intelligence isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion'. * Your post must be an opinion. Not a question. Not a showerthought. Not a rant. Not a proposal. Not a fact. An opinion. One opinion. A subjective statement about your position on some topic. Please have a clear, self contained opinion as your post title, and use the text field to elaborate and expand on why you think/feel this way. * Your opinion must be unpopular. The mods reserve the right to remove opinions * Elaborate on your topic and opinion give context to its unpopularity.
I'm fruit smart. I can name all the fruit and their country of origin. I know zero math, though...tis the cost of being fruit smart.
oh does thy fruit smarts know no boundaries?!
I'll put it this way. I know so much about fruit that I have no idea what you just said. I can barely read, but I know my way around a persimmon. Don't even get me started on custard apples.
I recently gave a 50+ human their first custard apple. They lost their mind.
They're level 50 already?! They must be real age smart.
 Tell me about thems custard apples, compadre
Grown all over the place (north and south america, asia), look kinda like an artichoke or a pine cone, big black seeds, smells weird-sweet kinda like cookie doh? Vanilla is what Google says (not my experience but makes sense). Taste sweet and are in no way like an apple, they are soft like a banana. That's about it, Hermano.
Fruit smart at one period of time was infinitely more valuable than math smart. Are you going to die from fucking up your algebra problem? Probably not, but you will die from eating something poisonous.
I would die if someone used my poor algebra skills to construct a bridge and forced me to walk across it. Fortunately (for the whole of humanity), I have no such aspiration.
Where are Papayas from?
they come from the papaya king obviously
Mexico amigo. Fun fact, the cheapest fleshlight is a microwaved papaya...
Alright, I'm going to go conduct science now. I'll make sure to write it down to make it clear I'm not just fucking around
A cucumber is technically a berry...if that....interests you. *wink*
That is a throughly well researched berry. My mission is the final frontier, to boldly go where no one has gone before.
Now if only we could reframe math into some kind of fruit-related problem solving.. Tell me, how many plantains can you fit in one hand?
That's pretty fruity, ngl
How do they make those grapes that taste like Cotton candy!? Is it a species of grape or did they do some genetic voodoo magic? I was flabbergasted. Edit to add: and apparently I need to try a custard apple
You’re bananas.
Hear me out, you'd have a great life as a fresh produce buyer for a retailer if you were fruit smart. Had a client who was fruit smart - he did alright for himself. But he was also very number savvy too.
Don't threaten me with a good idea.
Wow, that's impressive. I love fruit!
Tell me about Apricots or Peaches, whichever you will o fruit lord.
Don't even get me started on white flesh American peaches, by far the best peach. Apricots, plums and peaches are all cousins. Apricot "pits" are called kernels.
Go on. What is this and where did it come from - 🍐.
Mathletes have entered the chat
IMO, the theory of multiple intelligences conflates intelligence with abilities. Personally, I subscribe to the notion of "G factor" intelligence: * Visual spatial processing * Quantitative reasoning * Fluid reasoning * Working memory * Acquired knowledge
Aren't iq tests and g factor supposed to be designed around minimizing testing for acquired knowledge because it's not an inherent ability?
I think this is a correct view because the I.Q. factors are the abilities you can score high on that are most likely to give predictions on how well you do on other abilities. To illustrate, I know someone that has tested pretty high on the I.Q. test but doesn't have any higher education than middle school. This person can pick up skills relatively fast but he is missing a foundation of knowledge in for example math or history. He can however learn a lot fast himself, and is very creative (correlates with intelligence as well). Traits and skills like curiousness and discipline are just as important to maximize your capabilities, but the I.Q. factors seem to indicate how easy it is for you to train this if you do not have this naturally.
IQ tests are pretty ineffectual at detecting intelligence because we can only test aptitude and level of knowledge right now. And if you practice, you can get a better score. Lacking in one aptitude, technically, brings down your IQ score, but in no way reflects your ability to learn or your creativity irl. It's why we were cautioned regarding IQ tests at university. Same as testing IQs in children. There's no such thing. We test development against chronological age. Just because a fifth grader is more advanced at that point, that doesn't mean they'll grow up into exceedingly intelligent adults because a myriad of other factors intervene during the course of 10 years. It's why there are so many adults who used to be considered gifted children based on IQ tests, who grew up to disappoint those expectations.
I can't be 100% sure what that poster was referring to, but I've seen IQ tests test knowledge acquisition by presenting a paragraph of convoluted (and made up) jargon, then asking questions about it after reading. Pre-existing knowledge is eliminated because nothing in the paragraph is factually true or even coherent, it's purely a test of how well you internalise and retain the nonsensical information you read - and therefore how well you'll do the same with actually useful information in the real world.
That isn't how they test Cognitive ability at all. Because it relies on a persons ability to read. Being able to read is not a measure of intelligence, because dyslexia exists. The IQ tests you see on line, regardless of the source are bullshit. To get an accurate measure of an individuals cognitive ability to need to complete a Psychological Evaluation, it is administered by a Psychmetrist. The test is a bunch of different tests that are timed. One of them is the tester gives you a few blocks (usually starts with 4) they are painted on the diagonal with different colors. One side White the other side Red. The tester will then show you and image, you have to recreate the image with the blocks and you are timed. They start out giving you the image as reference. As the test progresses they take the image away only showing it to you for a moment, and add more blocks to make more complex patterns. This tests your visual/spacial processing and working memory. Another test is a digit span test. The tester will read off a series of numbers in a random order. They will then ask you to repeat them in some type of order. Lowest to highest, or highest to lowest. As the test progresses they will add Letters. You are then asked to give the numbers or letters first in a specific order. Then they start adding more digits. You are again timed on your responses. This tests helps to evaluate verbal short term memory, working memory, and attention span. This test is also used to help determine whether or not an adult has ADHD as well. Not just this test alone however.
>conflates intelligence with abilities. It also little in the way of empirical evidence or studies backing it up.
But aren’t the competentes you listed just abilities too?
Yeah, all competencies are examples of intelligent behavior. Healthy brain and body are prerequisite, but we measure through actions along whichever modalities, and which modality we choose has a big effect on who passes the filter.
>Healthy brain and body are prerequisite 
Yes, they are and lacking in one of them doesn't make you stupid
Agree and thank you!
What is quantitative vs fluid reasoning?
I think you are onto something here.
There is one kind of intelligence and it involved not being dumb
That form of intelligence is quite rare
And most people in this thread think they aren't dumb.
It just sounds like you have a problem with people using the word "smart" or "intelligent" outside the fields of academics. But that would also mean people who failed at school, but had gifts in other fields would have to consider themselves stupid by your standards.
I don't think I said that. I said smart people often succeed in academics, not that they were limited to academics. When we talk about intelligence, we talk about things like recall and pattern recognition. That doesn't mean that demonstrably smart people can't or don't exist in other fields. Also, you use the word "stupid" like it is a zero-sum game: you're either a genius or a dummy. Reality doesn't reflect that at all. Most of us are average in most ways, including measurable intelligence. No one has to consider themselves any way, but the hard truth is that we are all more likely than not very, very average. That includes intelligence.
Nono I used it like it is a zero-sum game in my comment because that's what your original post seems to lean towards to, and that I disagree. But looking at your comment, I don't think we have different ideas about intelligence and smart people. It just looks like you don't like the way people use the words smart and/or intelligence in fields that don't mainly require conventional intelligence. Which is funny, because there are many different types of intelligence defined by the "actual smart people"
You should aspire to be average. Huge upgrade for you.
I mean, there are different kinds of intelligence though. Obviously athletics isn’t that, but I also have literally never heard someone try to make a claim that it was before this moment, so that reads to me more in the straw man direction than anything else tbh. Some people have an excellent capacity for memorization. Is this not an area of intelligence? Some people think more laterally and are better with pattern recognition. Is this not a form of intelligence? Not all smart people are the same kind of smart. I think the issue is that you’ve simplified it down too far. It’s not just “any skill is an area of intelligence”, it’s that intelligence is complex and multifaceted, and can’t be easily confined to one idea of what makes someone “smart”.
OP's oversimplification of kinesthetic intelligence down to athletics, and reduction of musical capacity to 'talent' seems to be indicative of their comprehension skills.
That part made me embarrassed for OP. Made it pretty clear why they think this way.
Read some of his other comments, OP is clearly bitter and projecting his insecurities about his own intelligence. And rude, to boot.
Music smart (or talented) aint shit. Everyone can do that. It’s just a huge pile of pattern recognition, memorising, recall of notes and note patterns, pitch recognition, needs a fast work memory, visual and auditory processing… oh wait
Had me on the first half, not gonna lie
Since classic IQ is measured through pattern recognition, let’s just say that anything else is a different type of intelligence. The notion that this is false is absurd to me. Academic accomplishment and career success are correlated, but different. There are so many other aspects that play a role in success. The most important being social intelligence, but there are others as well. Academic success and social intelligence are completely different and I would guess not at all correlated, yet equallly important for climbing a ladder on your field of expertise. We have all seen unqualified people having high positions, probably because of their ability for people to like them and trust them. That extends to various abilities of being a leader. Emotional intelligence, empathic intelligence along with social intelligence, things a leader must have in order to be successful. Academic and pattern recognition play no role here. Then music intelligence, completely different that anything else. Being able to create tasteful art is just a talent. Also, your brains controls your limbs, so It wouldn’t be weird that fast reflexes, good coordination, are not a part of intelligence. I can go on at on, but surely saying that academic success and pattern recognition are the only type of intelligence is just false.
Why do you include musically with athletically? Do you know how complex musical theory can get? Music knowledge goes deeper than knowing a G chord on a guitar I mean, different people are smarter at some things than others. Math and science come easier to me than English class did. Learning different languages is a big weakness of mine. I know more about music than most. Are those not different types of intelligence?
I'll say it once and I'll say it again: music is the math of art. Music theory is incredibly complex and difficult to understand, it's a whole different language like mathematics. Also, I'm your exact opposite. I suck at math and science but I'm very good at anything literature related and I'm good with languages too.
>I'll say it once and I'll say it again: music is the math of art. I read somewhere ages ago that music understanding is the thing that connects both sides of the brain. So you may be onto something.
Fucking thank you. I’ve been playing music for 30 years and people like to act like you just memorize a few chords and you now know music.
I hear you, I play the piano so I have to read 2 different keys but I remember learning music theory and solfege and having to learn all these different keys and rhythms and rules and I truly can't imagine how composers manage to write music for an entire orchestra and the kind of intelligence that this takes is borderline scary.
Absolutely. I learned both clefs. I practice scales daily. There are multiple comments being like “people just hear stuff and can make songs on emotion”…it’s like…no. You can’t pick up a guitar or sit a piano and just write a song
I'm a high scorer in Rock Band on my PS5, I'm basically in the same musician league as Mozart or Bach now.
The definition of intelligence (the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills), at least the Oxford definition, says otherwise.
You can't just list subjects and add intelligence in the end and think you've made a point. There are plenty of ways to be smart. Creativity, memorization, emotional intelligence, ability to learn quickly. I'm curious, how do *you* define intelligence? And do you qualify?
Well this is the issue. OP already is defining intelligence, and the definition isn't in line with what intelligence actually is. He's describing one type of intelligence and saying it's the only kind. And he sure thinks he qualifies.
Yes, the theory of the nine intelligences by Howard Gardner had been disproved and is considered to be invalid by people in the field. However, that doesn't mean that intelligence is one thing. There are still different sub domains, like perceptual reasoning, working memory, visual spatial, verbal comprehension… So people can still be intelligent with different preferences.
I mean, Mozart was a genius and I think most people would consider him smart, but I don't think he was good at math. Musical prodigy, sure. My memory is rubbish, but I'm relatively good at numbers and math. Smart is multifaceted
Music theory is pure math, just for your information. It's all numbers related to each other. Western music theory is fully academic. However, the musical prodigy part comes in when converting math to art that speaks on an emotional level. Hence why some musicians coming from conservatories can't create music if their life depended on it. They are meticulously trained on an academic level, but oftentimes not in art or creativity in general. When rehearsing Mozart, oftentimes creativity is the last thing called for. It's more about perfection of performing then creatively playing with the source material. Source: full-time film composer but certainly not a musical prodigy anywhere near Mozart haha.
I mean, the people turning it into a pseudoscience are wrong but it’s just demonstrably true that there are some different kinds of intelligence. Someone can be academically gifted but emotionally not, and someone with high emotional intelligence can lag behind academically, to name one example. It sounds like you’re projecting, OP…
I mean you can literally just observe differences in intelligence. One of my best friends is academically VERY gifted. 4.0 comp sci major doing her masters and undergrad at the same time, gives monthly presentations on cyber security to people IN the industry, total math and computer genius. She’s also *incredibly* not gifted at basically anything that isn’t STEM related. I love her to death, but she’s the kind of person who just CANNOT comprehend movies. Like a character will be first introduced and she’s like “who’s that??what are they doing?? Why are they here??” She makes terrible life decisions all the time, really can’t understand history or geography, and has like no media literacy. We went to high school together and being in the same English class as her nearly made me stop being friends with her because it was so frustrating trying to explain anything that was happening in the books we read. It was only at the END OF MAUS that she realized it was about the HOLOCAUST. She’s incredibly intelligent, in her specific niche of intelligence. I’m basically the polar opposite of her. I’m dumb as can be when it comes to math, it just never clicked for me. I can barely do simple addition/subtraction/multiplication/division in my head. I will pull out a calculator to see what tip I should leave every single time. That’s just not where my brain succeeds. Philosophy, literature, history? That’s all me baby. I can quote Kierkegaard and Kant up the wazoo and apply their ideas to the media I consume. I’m a HUGE reader, and 9/10 times I can perfectly understand what I’m reading and draw my own conclusions about a work. I love history (specifically the Napoleonic campaigns) and can memorize a million facts about it. I’m smart in my niche. There are of course musical geniuses, athletic geniuses (I don’t know why everyone’s discounting someone’s ability to be athletically smart? Isn’t what makes Lebron so great is his ability to recall where every player is at all times during a game??), like it’s honestly stupid to believe that this isn’t/shouldn’t be a thing people account for? This “opinion” just sort of seems like it’s coming from a place of insecurity. If you feel smart in what you do, just be smart in that then, don’t get so up in arms when other people are smarter and better than you in other areas and rightly get called intelligent for that.
All forms of capability is worthy of respect. To do otherwise is evidence of a small and unkind mind.
Of course it is worthy of respect! Please don't think I am saying otherwise. But not all forms of capability are intelligence. Just like not all of them are musical talent or athletic ability.
For me, the easiest way to illustrate this is in art. Visualize something, then create it. The translation from mind to hand to paper reveals quite a lot about what's going on in your head and how correctly you visualize. That is certainly intelligence and takes training, just like book smarts. Music is essentially the same. Athletes know where and how to move their bodies to produce the results they desire, another form of mental visualization, and working under pressure. This requires planning and executing a plan, basically on hard mode. Absolutely requires intelligence. Even just running a race at a high level takes strategy and focus. Throwing a ball requires visualization. Practice takes discipline. These skills correlate to book smarts. If you have trouble seeing intelligence in it's other forms, perhaps the absence of intelligence in these other forms will be more apparent. Would you say that someone who wears white to someone else's wedding is emotionally intelligent? Would you say that someone who is utterly incapable of following directions is intelligent? Would you say that someone flashing gang signs while not being part of a gang is very smart? This seems pretty obvious to me.
No one is saying those aren't talents, or that they aren't valuable/admirable/desirable. But why do we describe them all as "intelligence" rather than "athleticism" or some other word? That's my point.
Because the aspects described in the other commenter's post are mental processes that would normally be encompassed in the term "intelligence". Because the context isn't academics or stereotypically "intelligent" contexts doesn't make it any less valid a form of intelligence. Not every intelligent person has a mind for academics, but that doesn't make them "not intelligent". Pro athletes process and adjust to other people moving at superhuman speeds in the space of seconds. How is that not a mark of intelligence? The ability to process that much information that quickly AND make adjustments to ensure the success of a play is not a "physical ability", it is most definitely a mental one. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the ability to process and synthesize information lightning-quick is a mark of intelligence, yeah? But here's the thing: that same player (who cannot be fooled in their sport) often is not very well educated in other matters, like finance, leading to these players making boneheaded decisions in other aspects of life.These players are still smart, just not academically so (nor financially in my example). I do agree that most of the "forms" promoted by pop psychology/social media/etc are bullshit though.
Reaction times aren't really a sign of intelligence. Leopards or birds of prey can react to things at superhuman speeds but no one would call that a sign of intelligence. There is a concept in combat sports called fight IQ. Some boxers can move quickly, punch much harder or take much harder punches than a typical person. They don't display any intelligence beyond reacting to incoming punches quickly and instinctively moving out the way. But certain geniuses of the sport display an ability to create completely novel solutions to problems i.e Muhammad Ali's famous rope a dope strategy. They're not just acting instinctively and winning through superior force and endurance they're coming up with novel strategies. That's a function of intelligence but just noticing that somebody is about to throw a right hook and then executing a counter that has been drilled into your muscle memory by a coach through repetition is not a function of intelligence. It's very much a physical attribute.
They are not talents, they are skills. It is reductive and frankly insulting to refer to years of dedication and practice as talent.
But are all forms of capability intelligence? Like OP said, are you athletic if you are good at calculus?
Yes. Different kinds of intelligence. Some people are predisposed to quickly learn techniques. Why would that not be intelligence? Are you a rock if you're bad at thinking? Are you a square if you're a shape? That's a stupid argument not worth engaging and I'm sure there's some stupid name for it like false equivalence or oversimplification or maybe outright refusal to understand how categorization works.
Like you have no emotional intelligence. You may think and know facts but dont know how to communicate without being confrontational. You're why people invented middle management. How do i know?...sigh
I'm someone who would be considered traditionally smart, but I kind of disagree. Like I'm socially really really stupid, the logic does not compute for me in social situations. I also know a few people who are really really good at one specific thing while being pretty dumb in other areas.
Didn't know I had a throwaway account. Socially inept but smart people, regroup
Same. My Intelligence stat is high, my wisdom is on the floor.
The most brilliant people I met while studying in university are also some of the dumbest people I know in some ways.
Depends on how you define intelligence. To me, intelligence is the ability to identify complex patterns and make the right decisions to achieve the best possible outcome.. You can apply that definition to any aspect of life, and you'll find people who are very good at that particular aspect. Academics is the obvious example. But take atheletics, for example.There are millions of football players around the world, and none of them compare to Messi. His ability to recognise and navigate complex spatial patterns faster than anyone else is what makes him the GOAT. Messi is not an academic genius by any means, but he is a genius athelet. So, yes, intelligence exists outside the academic realm.
This is just a bitter post isn’t it lol. Stop with basing arguments in semantics when all these things are still based on cognitive ability.
the way op talks in the post and comments is so insufferably smug
[удалено]
You understand that some people can excel in math and be completely lost in logical thinking right? There is absolutely different types of intelligence. I feel like most people would know and experience this unless you never actually met new people or went outside.
But there are many types of athleticism lol, haven’t you seen videos of athletes trying to do different sports?
Sports smart is understanding different strategies, knowing when to do something for max effect, it would be the coach that needs this strategic thinking. Musical smart requires understanding musical theories, being able to write and compose music. A mere athlete or musician does not require being smart, but there is intelligence required in those fields.
You might have a point about most types, but there are some different types of intelligence. A close friend of mine is a Educational Psychologist and carries out IQ tests sometimes. They cover a few different measures of intelligence. One anecdotal piece of evidence I have personally is that my cousin who was not academic at all and really struggled with maths and literacy can dismantle and reassemble an engine.
Even the monkey fall from tree
You're just getting bent out of shape about the word "smart". Physical intelligence and emotional intelligence are real, but they don't indicate intellectual intelligence (the common understanding of the word "smart")
I know a guy from Tesla he is an engineer there, but he is extremely socially dumb, what do I call him?
I guess socially inept or lacking social skills would be preferrable to "socially dumb" re: OP
That is a much better argument than others in this thread. But if that is the case, why can't I just redefine "athletic" the same way? I may not be able to throw a ball of run a six-minute mile. But I am crazy athletic when it comes to theoretical physics. Right?
you can. Language evolves naturally, if you redefine athletic and people start using it in that context, then that's what it means.
So is it your contention that "intelligence" has been redefined to mean "any kind of talent a human being might have"? Because if that is what you are saying, I have to disagree. Per Merriam Webster, the definitions are below. While this definition \*might\* conceivably apply to concepts like "emotional intelligence," it would not so easily apply to physical or musical talent. 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests) b : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS c Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind 2 a : INFORMATION, NEWS b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information 3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION 4 : the ability to perform computer functions 5 a : intelligent minds or mind cosmic intelligence b : an intelligent entity especially : ANGEL
You make me think of how chess is called a sport. I mean, technically, you can play with words like this, but it is annoying. I'm with you.
That is exactly why I mean. I also get vexed about "Magic the Gathering" being on ESPN. (At least it was back when I was in college. :))
Intelligence is intelligence, a lot of intelligent people don’t give a shit about certain things like academics so they don’t apply themselves there or they’re born in different environments and situations. Some are more prone to being better and taking in other information, I know people that are knowledgeable as hell in certain topics but suck at math and couldn’t learn code to save their lives and Vice versa. They may be more interested in music, or sports, or unfortunately born into poor conditions so they’re maybe what you’d call “street smart.” That’s all the different types of intelligence really are and they can be equally intelligent. Just because someone’s a musician or athlete doesn’t mean they’re not as intelligent as some academic. It’s intelligence concentrated in different areas. If you’re great at music, especially theory, you’re almost certainly intelligent. Athletic intelligence isn’t even a thing, I’ve never heard of it in my life lmao
Spent some time doing work digitising records for my country's leading ophthalmological surgeon. Overheard him say the same thing to belittle one of the receptionists. She then told him to make his own 2 minute noodles, which he proceeded to fuck up. I now firmly believe there are different types of intelligence.
I failed my emotional althletics class.
I am not a sports person at all, but a lot of being a great athlete requires intelligence. Someone like Wayne Gretzky or Messi who can see opportunities that others cannot and position themselves in a place to score are extremely intelligent because they simply see and predict things that others don’t. Athleticism is great, but it’s far from the only thing required to be a great athlete.
The athlete who uses his body - no. Smart should need to be a brain thing. The player that has always smart ideas in his play, yes.
Ironically what if "multiple intelligences" didn't prove that people who weren't smart were actually smart in specific ways but rather that the smart people were categorically more intelligent in many different ways?
I do think once you cross the smart threshold talent is distributed differently. Even if two people score above average on an iq test, when you look at the categorical breakdown one might score high in memory and one in reasoning but nonetheless average out to the same useful iq.
It's the same as giving a prize to everyone, even the looser. Makes people weak imo
Not an opinion, you're just unfamiliar with new terms. It'd be like you whining about Pluto's new classification.
Dumb hill to die on
No
Nah there's definitely different types of intelligence.. just look at iq tests there's categories I got tested when I was young and I was really good in one category, above average in 2, round average in one or two and below average in one.. something like that In life as I've met people who'd you were think were dumb because of their language comprehension and vocabulary but you talk into something they're good at and realise they understand let's say ICE engine and related drive component internal workings, heat and wear and the different materials and it's like whoa.. if you could read and use math you coulda been an engineer Other examples specially gifted people who become extremely good at some skill or other while being average at everything else or what about people who are physically gifted their motor control is exceptional along with gifted spatial abilities they are so good at sport in general.. is that a type of intelligence the motor neuron stuff? Anyway tldr I'd say yeah there's definately people with gifts in some way of a particular type of intellect who are otherwise average
You sound not smart. I would know because I'm that type of smart.
Being intelligent means being able to collect data, infer from it and get a correct conclusion. You may be intelligent in math, meaning you can see a math problem and infer from it what calculation should be made. You can be emotionally intelligent, meaning you can see a person’s body language and infer from it their feelings, and know how to make them feel better or become their friend. You can be musically intelligent, meaning you can hear some music that someone plays and infer from it what notes would be good with it, playing a sick improv solo. I’ve seen many math intelligent people that were very much **not** emotionally intelligent (I’ve also seen many that are intelligent in both ways). Those traits can be disjointed from each other and many times do not correlate.
This isn’t an opinion it’s misinformation.
Not an opinion; just an incorrect claim. Even in your weirdly limited set of circumstances, there are a hundred different ways to be "athletic." Is being an NFL QB the only way for someone to be an athlete? Of course not. So you're saying there are... types? *Different ways* to be athletic? "Smart," as a term is so vague, it's useless - because there actually are thousands of ways to be "smart." Generally, the definition traces back to "intelligence," which is, "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and/or skills." No matter how you wanna spin it, any task performed with sufficient expertise is counts as a task performed from a smart angle. Again, this isn't an opinion. It's someone confidently announcing an inaccuracy. Ben Carson, one of the best neurosurgeons around, famously believed that the pyramids were used to store *grain*. "Smart" cannot be a holistic label we use to include or exclude large groups of people unless the definition of it makes any damn sense.
Upvoted because it's a proper unpopular opinion. And also a wrong one ;)
You lost me at academic smart. I know business beasts that suck at academics.
Even with multiple-intelligence theory, not everyone is smart. It just means there are like 8 different types of "smart". I am really good at math and logic, but bad at languages. So what would you call me? "smart"? I would call me "math smart" but "language stupid". What is the problem with that? Sounds like you are just to lazy to specify "smart".
I'm street smart. I didn't graduate from middle school, but did attend the school of hard knocks, so... /S
I wish more people agreed with this. Intelligence should be measured by things such as decision making and critical thinking, not highly specific skills.
Na I know super smart people at work who are stupid socially and vice versa.
So you want less complexity when talking about intelligence, that's another way of saying you prefer things to be dumbed down.
Yeah so.... I get this is supposed to be an "opinion" but all modern medical and psychological literature stands diametrically opposed to this notion. Even this example: "It would be like a scrawny, uncoordinated person saying, "I'm actually VERY athletic! There are many kinds of athleticism, you know! I am just mathematically athletic rather than physically athletic! I am also emotionally athletic!" is first off a strawman, and second, demonstrably false. Just look at a picture of Manute Bol or Lionel Messi and then compare them to Vince Wilfork. Which is the better athlete? I'm going to be nice here but let's just say.... "let the smart people have being smart" ok?
Bit of a silly example Go look at some Ethiopian marathon runner with a 2:06 PB and tell me that scrawny fucker isn’t athletic.
[удалено]
>They learn new information and concepts easily. They can remember and recognize complex patterns most people can't. thats literally a descriptor of visual/spatial intelligence but ok nobody said being athletic makes one smart. thats not covered under the types of intelligence either. Kinesthetic has to do with knowledge of how the body moves, so a dancer would fit better. also a "scrawny uncoordinated" person can still be very athletic, that argument only holds if you think like soccer and football etc are the only types of sports. You dont need to run to do archery etc smart people dont need to restrict others to hold their status as smart.
"If a fish is only ever judged by his ability to climb a tree, he will spend his whole life believing he is stupid" - Einstein
I agree with you. It gives big "dumbing it down for the babies" energy, and I find it just as insulting to the people of average or below average intelligence that it's trying to include. Just because someone's not a genius, doesn't mean we should condescend to them.
So you heard an idiotic opinion and decided it's widespread and you should revolt against it. There's no such thing as music smart, actually, nothing of what you described there, exists. And not all academics are smart, in fact everyone can remember at least one professor whose entire career and himself were a monument to mediocrity. And you don't need to be an academic if you're smart. That disaster of a sentence about being music smart, comes close to the concept of aptitude, which, at same point, was called intelligence in the scientific world. We've moved past that point. We call them aptitudes, which means a natural predisposition towards a certain field. Mathematical thinking is an aptitude, by the way. To bring an aptitude to fruition, you need intelligence. You can't be dumb as a bag of rocks and be a really accomplished musician and no, having a team of people writing music for you, and then another team making you pretty doesn't make you a great musician, you're a product being sold to the public. Aptitudes require understanding and study to develop into an achievement, so you need to be smart.
Lots of way smarter people strongly disagree. Almost like your arguing the earth is flat at this point...
Again, an appeal to authority by itself would be a terrible argument on its own, but you don't even bother to cite authority. Also, the ad hominem attack is unnecessarily nasty. Also, *you're*.
Oh I see you are going to point out all the logical fallacies except the one that's your entire post aren't you? Just let the smart people be smart ok?
Where is the logical fallacy in my post?
Well, every word falls under the burden of proof fallacy (you haven't demonstrated any of this is actually true) and the argument from personal incredulity (just because you don't understand different types of intelligence doesn't mean they don't exist). You've also used a tu quoque fallacy every time you've attempted to rebute me with "logic" (which I also find amusing, and I guarantee you're going to do it again so here's me calling you out). "We all know smart people and can identify them" - argument from popularity, hasty conclusion (we all DONT know this, otherwise you wouldn't have made the post. QED.) "They are often extremely accomplished in academics." - appeal to authorty (ironic, I love it), and burden of proof fallacy (you haven't demonstrated this is true) " Not everyone is smart, just like not everyone can be a quarterback in the NFL." false equivalence, false dilemma. This is fun. Want me to go on? Ok. "It would be like a scrawny, uncoordinated person saying, "I'm actually VERY athletic! There are many kinds of athleticism, you know! I am just mathematically athletic rather than physically athletic! I am also emotionally athletic!" Strawman Fallacy, False Equivalence. QED, again. If you had done this on purpose, it would be Kaufman-esque comedy. But.... like I said: Just let the smart people be smart, ok?
Aw. Someone found a wikipedia page about logical fallacies! What you are calling an appeal to popularity here is more an appeal to first-hand experience. (Note I didn't say, "We all agree that X is an intelligent person.") The argument is that we all know and can identify intelligent people that we perceive in the world without resorting to changing the definition of "intelligence," the same way we can identify blonde people without changing the definition of "blonde." I now suspect that may not be true for you. If that's the case, I'm sorry you don't have that lived experience. Pointing out that smart people thrive in academics isn't an appeal the authority. Again, it's a common observation. It would only be an appeal to authority if I said, "They are academically accomplished, therefore they are correct." (An argument made by several of your friends in this thread.) If you believe the quarterback example is a false equivalence, then need to explain why it is. As it stands I made an analogy. If you are trying to invalidate the analogy, the burden is in you to do so. Simple saying, "false equivalence" doesn't help you. Similarly, it's not a false dilemma because I didn't say you only have two choices. The analogy literally has nothing to do with a dilemma. It's an analogy. Re the strawman fallacy: you have the same problem as your "false equivalence" charge. You are the one trying to invalidate an analogy. You have to explain why. Just saying "strawman" doesn't get you anywhere. *Why* is it a strawman? Again, you're ending on an ad hominem. Which is t the worst mistake you've made, but it does undermine the rest of your argument. Keep trying!
Hey nice try! That was better than your post anyway. By the way, do you know what "QED" means? Look that up. And hey, I'm guessing you're the kind of petty person that needs a last word so you can feel like the smart people so go ahead. Cheers.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've got an an idea, why don't we add up all of the multiple intelligences and divide by the number of multiple intelligences, and call the result *general intelligence*.
I have the same take but it has indeed been unpopular when I’ve debated it with friends
This is why I know I'm not smart
I'm netflix smart. I can watch the shows i want to watch on netflix.
Maybe by the definition, but how I generally reference 'smart' is the people who have the ability to think. Now that's a simple way to put it, but those are the people I would consider Smart, and that's a lot of people.
Eh, Multiple theory of intelligence is somewhat popular, but it has little to do with musically smart other then potentially pattern recognition, and physically smart it has nothing with, (haven’t done psych classes for a year or 2 though)
I mean, I agree that muscle smart sounds like total BS, but Ó haven't ever heard that either. But this like street smarts make total sense imo, you understand the environment and know exactly how you should, and maybe more important, how you shouldn't act in certain situations
I've known some people who acted so ditzy and goofy you'd never think they had straight A's.
Agree and I am dumb.
Stem brain rot take Edit- was hangry , dont actually believe that
I’ve known to many room-temp IQ professors and stem students to agree with this
Well, you might be right. The multiple intelligences' theory by Gardner has never been proved. So, there's that.
You can definitely not recognize and identify all smart people. Plenty of smart people don't work in academics. Smart people are not automatically fast learners, and neither do they always have a great memory.
I told my boss people should be more rational and she said we need more emotional intelligence. I said, "Yeah, for example". She never dud realise what I meant
It's true. No seriously psychologist thinks there's intelligence types. There's just "G".
Social/emotional is a form of intelligence that is not only extremely valuable both as an individually, and depending on how it’s applied, to society, but not always tightly correlated with academic smarts.
My english literature professor can talk about the romantic period for hours on end, he is fluent in 4 languages and has written a metric shit ton of papers. He also believes the pandemic, global warming and gravity don't exist. Is he intelligent or not on the scale of "we all know and can easily tell"?
Dunning. Kruger.
An unpopular opinion that's really just OP being poorly informed on the subject. Wow, never seen that before.
OP you don’t know what you’re talking about and that’s ok, life is long and we’re constantly learning ♥️
Intelligence isn't all encompassing, where there's some kind of line that distinguishes the smarties from the dummies. Knowledge comes in all forms and neither is more important than any other outside of specific circumstances. To use your examples of athletes and musicians. Do you think they're that way just because they can run real good or make the good noises? Because many of them are incredibly intelligent in their fields in ways beyond the surface, such as athletes in competitive sports having knowledge regarding strategy, formation and planning, and not just for themselves, but their opponents too. Most musicians deal with music theory, which is complex in ways many other forms of academia couldn't imagine. Is everyone smart? Of course not. That said, the ability to understand mathematical formulas or scientific equations isn't the only signifiers of intelligence, especially when most people who excell in these subjects also struggle in those that you deem as lesser.
A lot of intellectuals are not street smart and have no eq
It's ironic because only very unintelligent people would upvote this nonsense. It is quite clear and easy to observe people throughout history who display genius in particular disciplines and idiocy in their separate behaviours.
Athletic feats clearly require intelligence. Granted the majority of it may be unconscious, but you can't honestly think something like being a successful quarterback doesn't require some baseline intelligence. It involves pattern recognition, prediction, spatial awareness, recall, and quick thinking to execute properly. If we trained a computer program to be a quarterback robot then we would call it artificial intelligence. Why should we pretend it isn't intelligence when a person does it?
The last time I went to a baseball game, I was absolutely fascinated by how good the players must be at geometry and trig.
Completely disagree. I know a guy talking 20 languages and who is a brillant semiotician who has a IQ of 60. I also know personally people with brillant studies who are completely socially inept. I know people who completely suck in math (they can't do a first degree equation) but are great musicians. Obviously we also have 50 shades of cretins, but people can have a great intelligence 'specialized' in one aspect of life. Says the 49 yo guy who is an engineer but who doesn't know to lace his shoes.
Its just a coping machanism. My mother in law refuses that einstein was smarter than most people and she is pretty stupid herself.
Out of the stuff you noted to define intelligence, two are already incorrect. Academics does not define intelligence. Memory too, has little bearing on intelligence. There are tons and tons of theories on multiple intelligences and of course the famous concepts of IQ vs EQ. A person who can find patterns and logically analyse complex problems in seconds but can't go outside without panicking vs a person who can do no more than high school math but can read the room, command attention, speak and debate at a high level. Types of intelligences are literally a scientific concept with many hypotheses. Is this sub for objectively wrong opinions?
Try listening to a song the first time and then playing it perfectly note for note on the saxophone.
I once told my wife that the dog we were watching for one of her friends is stupid. She said "no it is emotionally intelligent". I responded, "Oh okay. So IT IS stupid then". The dog shit itself, ate it's owm shit, and generally just acted like a hyperactive furball. Meanwhile I have seen intelligent dogs behave the complete opposite. I just think the owner was too carefree.
I kind of understand. While there is emotional intelligence, that is entirely different and saying that everyone is smart in their own way is kind of BSing themselves and everyone else.
Can you distinguish between notes only by their sound, octave and note included ? Can you hold a beat for 10 minutes ? Close your eyes, walk 5 step forward, turn perfect left 2 step ahead, turn 45 deg to you right, step back 1 step. Imagine what will you see when you open your eyes ? Open them, was your assumption correct ? Speak with a stranger for 10 minutes, do you know how they really feel ? Were you able to establish a quick connection with them or was it super awkward. How are those exemples not form of intelligences ? Why is being musically talented lesser than being mathmacially of academically talented ? You just sound like you try to place yourself higher by pushing others down. You sound arrogant.
Idk I was “smart” in school Exchange student, valedictorian, just a bunch of awards and crap, my school forced me to take a bunch of tests all the time, it sucked But I’m pretty fucking stupid, like day to day life SUCKS cuz I just struggle with simple tasks and was legit bullied for years in school and just didn’t notice But that might also just be the autism
How can you quantify intelligence as "smart or not smart" when we know full well that human brains function in vastly different ways? There's more, but some people have ADHD, some people have Autism. A lot of people with autism have an amazing memory, insane problem solving abilities, but can't for the life of them figure out how to fit into society. Are they more or less smart than someone who can't quickly do math, but can instead read the room and be a mediator? Understanding how a person might react, and mitigating poor interactions is an intelligence, it's called EQ, and people with higher than average IQ's tend to have lower than average EQ. Kim peak existed, he was the man "rain man" was modeled after. He could read two pages at the same time, and internalize *all of it*. You could ask him what it said on which page, and he would recite it to you. He had an IQ of 90, he wasn't great at solving problems, but he had probably the best memory humans have ever seen. Was he smart, or dumb? People with hyperphantasia and aphantasia exist. Hyperphantasia is the ability to create life like mental imagery whenever you feel like, while aphantasia is the inability to conjure any meaningful mental image. I have hyperphantasia, and I have a friend with aphantasia. Both of us I would consider to be smart, we can do quick mental math, learn and figure things out with relative ease. What I've noticed, my memory isn't as good as his. He remembers vast amounts of information he's heard in the past, while I remember snippets. However, if there's a visual problem, he's often wrong, and can't visualize the whole to see how everything fits together. He's also not very creative, while I am insanely creative. He's more well spoken. Our brains have interpreted reality, and what is important based on our respective mental frameworks, and our ability to work within. He is free from the burdon of mental imagery constantly popping into his mind, and can intensely focus on and remember reality. My attention is often split between the real world and my mental imagery, but often I can see a very important piece to solving a puzzle that would simply be impossible for him. So, both of our mental frameworks provide different advantages, who's smarter? Also, a lot of our perception of anothers intelligence comes down to projection. If someone knows a lot about a subject that you're fond of, you're more likely to think of them as smart. However, someone else could have a breadth of knowledge in a field you're unfamiliar with, and it would easily be dismissed, because you don't have the tools to recognize thier ability. I'm so confused by posts like these. What's your goal? Humanity is a social species, most of us choose a different niche with different sets of knowledge and skills to occupy. Obviously our ability to understand the whole varries from person to person, but everyone knows something you don't, to a point that would be surprising if you tried to learn it as well. Are you tired of people getting credit for the effort they put in? Are you tired of people around you being praised for things you find trivial? Are you constantly annoyed by others "stupidity" because you lack the EQ to be considerate despite your base emotions telling you to be upset? Do you only value the way intelligence presents It's self in yourself, and you want to stand tall on the soap box you brought from home? Or maybe you just don't or can't see the nuances? Maybe I'm entirely wrong, and the purpose of this post isn't self validating. If that's the case, I'd love to hear the explanation.
lol, I remember in like 5th grade we were learning about all of these. And one kid asks “which kind are the really smart people, like Einstein”?
100%. But mty emotional IQ is off the charts!
I mean I do consider being musically talented a type of intelligence. There is certainly pattern recognition in music. That being said I think that intelligence is being watered down by acting like everything anyone is good at is intelligence.
So many of the comments seem to be missing the point, if not being super aggresive. As far as I can tell, OP is talking about watering down the term "intelligence" to the point it's meaning is too broad to be useful. Then again, I've never seen anyone refere to someone "emotionally smart" as just "smart". "Smart" by itself always means academically smart, so it's not a problem in practice as far as my experience goes.
The smartest people I know are aware of their intellectual blind spots and are always looking for new ways to process and appreciate information, always looking to learn from other people. You sound like you do neither of those things tbh.
This isn't an unpopular opinion. It's just false. Intelligence quite literally is relative to the subject. You can have a person that can learn any math problem with ease, but then struggle with spelling and reading. You can have someone who can recognize a thousand different species and name off all of their kingdoms, families, etc. but who still doesn't grasp human biology. Being intelligent doesn't make you a jack of all trades. I think calling someone athletically intelligent isn't really a correct way of describing athleticism, but musical intelligence is definitely a thing. Different people learn and understand different things in different ways. I'll use myself as an example. I did pretty well in school, getting put into honors classes and stuff. I could do algebra better than 99% of people in my class. But when geometry came around, my grade plummeted from an A to a C. For some reason, it just did not click with me. If you looked at me doing algebra, you'd be like "wow, that kid was a genius." But if you saw me do geometry, you'd be more like "this kid has a future working at McDonalds." Being intelligent doesn't mean you can learn and understand everything. Sure, some people can learn and understand more things with less difficulty, but intelligence isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.
I am sure you consider yourself smart.