1–10 of 15 posts
Is it largely genetics? Does everyone have an "upper limit" of the "smart" they can be, which is determined by their genes?
Or is it just hyper-focus and concentration that makes someone smart?
Let us assume, smart here means the rate at which someone lears, grasps or solves things.
I often wonder what it would have been like working with somebody like John von Neumann or how they really see the world.
Although training in certain disciplines can help you score higher on intelligence tests by making the situations they test for less novel (and increase your "intelligence" as measured by the tests due to their foundational assumptions), it will do nothing to increase your actual intelligence - merely skew the results of the imperfect test a little bit.
That's not to say that training for an IQ test is a waste of time! A piece of paper showing a higher score is always valuable for getting ahead in society. And training to make large swaths of situations less novel makes you better able to navigate because now you have relevant experience (and thus require less intelligence to navigate successfully on your "first" try).
Tests are often singularly-focused, have clear right or wrong answers, and measure smartness.
Real life is uncertain, many competing layers and priorities, and measures wisdom.
I don't have proofs though.
Cognitive strategies vary so much they are difficult to compare. Good memory vs deduction skills, tenacious will vs opportunistic, dogmatic structure vs chaotic exploration. Quirky yet elegant tastes vs OCD who picks at problems.
Does not regard convention. Beyond aware that there is such a thing, preoccupation of expectations is a barrier. One may not realize they are a smarty pants until long after everyone stalling comments on how far along you've gotten.
Obsession and compulsion has a lot to say for circumstances. Normal people are off enjoying their mental serenity, smarty pants are often agonizing over incongruous abstractions. A smooth character simply does not expose their restlessness.
Not knowing something is enough to stop a normal in their tracks, a smarty will observe, explore, relate, and experiment. Playing around, having interests, and not knowing there were supposed to be limits may be common traits.
Normals are too busy doing something else, comfortable in their not knowing, everything explained away.
"Intelligence", though difficult to scientifically define, is generally regarded as how quickly one grasps a novel situation, allowing one to come up with a solution quicker than others could. Although training in certain disciplines can help you score higher on intelligence tests by making the situations they test for less novel (and increase your "intelligence" as measured by the tests due to their foundational ass…
The application may be limited, yet even knowing and experiencing that is a degree of intelligence.
I say [citizen] scientifically that intelligence is the mitigation of uncertainty. If it does not mitigate uncertainty it is not intelligence.
All that other stuff you attached is on you. You are telling yourself things about intelligence which may be something else mixed in. "Quicker than others", "will do nothing", that inference is an inferior kind of intelligence, etc.