My theory: yes.
Is smartness how quickly you can get & keep information, or how much information can fit in one's brain?
My theory : yes.
It's correlation of that information that's more important I would think. If you can draw conclusions from the information,infer consequences and act accordingly you might be a little smart. Just the accumulation of information is .not a measure of anything.
I do agree that retention and speed of processing is a mark of intelligence. Obviously there is a physical limitation to storing new knowledge but it would seem the selection of information and the utilization of that information would be a surer indicator of "smart".
Yes I concur,some people are smarter.
( Wish I was one of them,lol)
Is the pursuit of being smart actually for the application of knowledge, or just for a false sense of superiority to others?
Information is not that simple.
www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/types-of-information )
You can have differing skills/abilities in each/any of these .
It depends on the kind of smartness.
That one scene on the park bench in 'Good will hunting' says it all in my opinion, you can be smart but others can be wise, it's a great scene with two great actors.
The meaning of intelligence (smartness), by google:
"the quality of being intelligent, or able to think quickly or intelligently in difficult situations"
@HemaWorst said in #7:
> The meaning of intelligence (smartness), by google:
> "the quality of being intelligent, or able to think quickly or intelligently in difficult situations"
Yes, an useless definition ("thinking intelligently" ? in "difficult" situations ?) generated by an artificial and stupid machine :-)
@hicetnunc said in #8:
> Yes, an useless definition ("thinking intelligently" ? in "difficult" situations ?) generated by an artificial and stupid machine :-)
fyi Google doesn't construct those definitions, they are actually provided by "Oxford Languages" which is apparently the world's leading dictionary publisher.
@kyanite111 said in #9:
> fyi Google doesn't construct those definitions, they are actually provided by "Oxford Languages" which is apparently the world's leading dictionary publisher.
Clearly the stupid machine didn't pick the best definition available.
Wikipedia does a much better job here.
