CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › What counts as smart?

What counts as smart?

Started by Kenneth Price74 · · 👁 5 views · 42 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Kenneth Price74Chris Fisher3nimblepilot29AAustin Carter6Kenneth Peterson5Lisa Barnes3Jerry Hughes55bluebison70James Martin6Ryan Wood6Casey Wilson4Elizabeth Ruiz65Amy Thomas5wiredmaker18bluetiger13swiftcobra15Linda Nguyen19Jonathan Sullivan3Gary Martinez2Matthew Jackson69electricstag91Donna Thompson2Rachel Hall9
bluetiger13 bluetiger13 Member
20 messages
joined Dec 2007
#21 ·
I've met a ton of people, and honestly—I wouldn't even touch a 1-to-10 rating system if I were in an evaluator's shoes. It’s just not that simple. To be real, I haven't run into anyone truly brilliant yet—it's like they don't even exist.
Elizabeth Ruiz65 Elizabeth Ruiz65 Active Member
66 messages
joined Jan 2008
#22 ·
bluetiger13 said:I've met a ton of people, and honestly—I wouldn't even touch a 1-to-10 rating system if I were in an evaluator's shoes. It’s just not that simple. To be real, I haven't run into anyone truly brilliant yet—it's like they don't even exist.

So, in your estimation, what actually constitutes a truly intelligent person?
wiredmaker18 wiredmaker18 Member
41 messages
joined Jan 2008
#23 ·
I’d say you can split intelligence—real knowledge—into two camps: general knowledge, which is just that broad, often shallow "common culture" stuff everyone picks up, and specialized knowledge, the deep dive held by people who actually call themselves experts in their field. Hopefully, that second group actually knows their stuff.
There’s also this other huge factor: how you actually handle what you know. Knowledge itself is just a pile of memorized data points. What makes it worth a damn is what we do with it—whether we use it or let it sit there, and whether we actually draw logical conclusions from those facts. Being able to form your own opinions, pivot when you're wrong, and weigh someone else's ideas against rational, objective logic is what makes knowledge functional. It's what makes it valuable. To quote Einstein: Any fool can know. A point is to understand. And I’d take it a step further: and Use that Understanding efficiently in Your Life.
That’s it. Just adding a little extra to a thought from one of the greatest minds ever. But I think I'm onto something...
bluebison70 bluebison70 Active Member
50 messages
joined Nov 2007
#24 ·
wiredmaker18 said:Yeah, sure. And those 6 million Jews he supposedly killed were just collateral damage while he was busy trying to solve hunger in Africa. Meanwhile, he spent the whole World War meditating in the Himalayas, while his evil imaginary twin brother started the biggest conflict in modern history because he missed his big brother's love...

Just a few more "profound" thoughts on that guy Ada Hićo.

Hitler was just your average, broken-ass psychopath who happened to be in the right place at the right time. He was loud and charismatic enough to rally a nation trashed by WWI and unemployment, telling them they were superior beings. It kicked off a war that let the military-industrial complex thrive, which basically gave everyone a job...

On a different note, someone said it right. Knowledge is just accumulated info, but intelligence is how fast you connect the dots and actually get it. Reminds me of Einstein's quote: Any fool can know. The point is to understand.


We don't have to like Hitler, but the fact remains that he was a brilliant statesman and military leader. He had an unprecedented level of intellect.

Why didn't anyone else show that kind of brilliance? Well, maybe it's just because they didn't have it. Hitler is a historical figure. And the remark about Jews isn't entirely fair, I guess. Why weren't they smart enough to foresee the course of events and organize a proper response to what was coming? They had money—which equals power—but they lacked a brilliant leader, someone as sharp as Hitler. It's not just Hitler's fault...

What separates a genius from a fool? It's a thin line, really. Einstein didn't suck up all the intelligence in the world.
wiredmaker18 wiredmaker18 Member
41 messages
joined Jan 2008
#25 ·
bluebison70 said:We don't have to like Hitler, but the fact remains that he was a brilliant statesman and military leader. He had an unprecedented level of intellect.

Why didn't anyone else show that kind of brilliance? Well, maybe it's just because they didn't have it. Hitler is a historical figure. And the remark about Jews isn't entirely fair, I guess. Why weren't they smart enough to foresee the course of events and organize a proper response to what was coming? They had money—which equals power—but they lacked a brilliant leader, someone as sharp as Hitler. It's not just Hitler's fault...

What separates a genius from a fool? It's a thin line, really. Einstein didn't suck up all the intelligence in the world.

Hitler is a historical figure, but far from being a positive one (we can argue all day about how much of a mess the Jews have on their hands, but the fact is they aren't the ones who shoved Germans into camps—it was the other way around).

As for Hitler's intellect, that's debatable. The guy just happened to be in the right place at the right time and was loud enough to grab the masses. Also, look at Goebbels and Göring. They were basically the masterminds behind Nazi propaganda, from Hitler's own design and uniforms to the flags, color schemes, and messaging... Every leader has a massive crew of advisors and assistants without whom they'd be nothing. If Hitler hadn't been in the "right" place at the "right" time, been loud and "charismatic" enough (I'd call him psychotic and schizophrenic instead) to exploit a Germany reeling from WWI, and if everyone wasn't already living on the edge even without his Ubermensch ideas, Hitler would've just been another face in the crowd. What made him a defining figure of the 20th century, besides the massive global conflict he triggered, was the specific circumstances he stepped into, a population ready for a loudmouth, and a solid backbone of people working behind the scenes for him.

Why weren't Jews smart enough to foresee the course of events and organize an appropriate response to what was coming? They had money equals power, but they lacked a smart leader, someone as sharp as Hitler. It’s not just on Hitler...

I have to quote this again. Why didn't they foresee the direction things were going and organize resistance? To me, that sounds like blaming a rape victim for being raped. Like, why the hell was she walking through a parking lot at night if she didn't want to get screwed?
Look, even if she wanted to be "loose," she certainly didn't want it with a rapist. Even if she knew there was a hypothetical danger, that doesn't mean she should have stayed locked in her house forever (I won't comment on clothing, because a rapist would have done his business whether she was naked or dressed to the chin). Is the victim at fault or the perpetrator? Even if the Jews lacked someone to lead them and organize resistance, that absolutely does not make them responsible just because some insecure lunatic decided he needed to slaughter them. Without getting into Hitler's actual motives for such an act, the Jews cannot bear the guilt for the Holocaust.

The idea that the line between genius and idiot is thin is mostly true, but a man is defined by his actions. Einstein didn't suck up all the intelligence in the world, but the difference is that Ada Hićo did a lot more damage than Albert Einstein, regardless of how brilliant he might have been. Hitler was a product of his time, his circumstances, and the historical moment...
nimblepilot29 nimblepilot29 Member
49 messages
joined Oct 2006
#26 ·
Elizabeth Ruiz65 said:I had a random thought today, a sort of reformulation of that
Einstein's quote about those two infinite things—the universe and human stupidity.

The thing is, if the quote leaves open the possibility that human intelligence is actually limited,
then maybe both the universe and human stupidity are finite too. We just call them
infinite simply because our own limited intellect isn't quite capable enough
to actually figure out where their boundaries lie.

Where on earth do these little insights just pop into your head, wiredmaker18?
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 Regular
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#27 ·
bluebison70 said:We don't have to like Hitler, but the fact remains that he was a brilliant statesman and military leader. He had an unprecedented level of intellect.

Why didn't anyone else show that kind of brilliance? Well, maybe it's just because they didn't have it. Hitler is a historical figure. And the remark about Jews isn't entirely fair, I guess. Why weren't they smart enough to foresee the course of events and organize a proper response to what was coming? They had money—which equals power—but they lacked a brilliant leader, someone as sharp as Hitler. It's not just Hitler's fault...

What separates a genius from a fool? It's a thin line, really. Einstein didn't suck up all the intelligence in the world.

😕 😕 😕
People call Hitler a "genius" criminal, or try to paint him as some kind of brilliant statesman and military strategist, but that just doesn't hold water. It’s simply not true.

He was truly a master of political maneuvering, possessing a level of ruthlessness that I found quite unsettling.
He was ruthless when it came to eliminating his former allies—anyone who dared become a competitor was wiped out without mercy.
The Night of the Long Knives: Ernst Röhm. That’s all there is to say about that supposed "statesman." 😁

As a military leader, he made the incredibly foolish decision to launch an invasion that would ultimately lead to his downfall just a few months later.
The USSR was fighting on the Western Front at the exact same time. It actually turned out quite well.
Most of the German generals generally viewed him as nothing more than a charlatan.
bluebison70 bluebison70 Active Member
50 messages
joined Nov 2007
#28 ·
swiftcobra15 said:😕 😕 😕
People call Hitler a "genius" criminal, or try to paint him as some kind of brilliant statesman and military strategist, but that just doesn't hold water. It’s simply not true.

As a military leader, he made the incredibly foolish decision to launch an invasion that would ultimately lead to his downfall just a few months later.
The USSR was fighting on the Western Front at the exact same time. It actually turned out quite well.
Most of the German generals generally viewed him as nothing more than a charlatan.

And as a military strategist? He made the incredibly foolish decision to invade (and then basically destroy himself within months)
the USSR, all while fighting on the Western Front at the same time. It turned out... well, not great.
Most of the German generals, for the most part, viewed him as nothing more than a charlatan.

I suppose a historical figure can be seen as positive or negative, but they change the world through their actions regardless. Every person has light and dark sides, I think. Hitler wasn't an exception to that rule.

When I was writing about Hitler, I mostly just wanted to see how everyone else would react, and I'm actually glad there are people here who take a critical stance.
wiredmaker18 wiredmaker18 Member
41 messages
joined Jan 2008
#29 ·
It’s funny how people struggle to see things—and folks—in context. It isn't about playing the victim card or nursing old wounds from some dead regime forever, but because taking things out of context creates this massive, noisy mess when you look at different situations. There’s a big difference between cracking a joke about Hitler today, nearly eighty years after WWII ended, and actually pushing Nazi or fascist ideology. One is a joke; the other is just as dangerous whether it's 1939, 1945, 2008, or right now. The problem is that people are incredibly easy to manipulate. If someone tosses out a claim that Hitler was some kind of genius, plenty of mindless, incapable people will grab those two words—"Hitler" and "genius"—and run with them, linking them directly to the horrors of the Nazi regime without thinking twice. You have to realize that Nazism, neo-Nazism, and nationalism (and I mean the "some races are better than others" kind, not simple patriotism) don't just give people an ego trip. I don't care if someone thinks they're superior as long as they aren't hurting anyone, but more often than not, that mindset escalates into violence and stripping away basic rights from anyone who doesn't fit their twisted, "perfect" mold.
bluebison70 bluebison70 Active Member
50 messages
joined Nov 2007
#30 ·
wiredmaker18 said:It’s funny how people struggle to see things—and folks—in context. It isn't about playing the victim card or nursing old wounds from some dead regime forever, but because taking things out of context creates this massive, noisy mess when you look at different situations. There’s a big difference between cracking a joke about Hitler today, nearly eighty years after WWII ended, and actually pushing Nazi or fascist ideology. One is a joke; the other is just as dangerous whether it's 1939, 1945, 2008, or right now. The problem is that people are incredibly easy to manipulate. If someone tosses out a claim that Hitler was some kind of genius, plenty of mindless, incapable people will grab those two words—"Hitler" and "genius"—and run with them, linking them directly to the horrors of the Nazi regime without thinking twice. You have to realize that Nazism, neo-Nazism, and nationalism (and I mean the "some races are better than others" kind, not simple patriotism) don't just give people an ego trip. I don't care if someone thinks they're superior as long as they aren't hurting anyone, but more often than not, that mindset escalates into violence and stripping away basic rights from anyone who doesn't fit their twisted, "perfect" mold.


Exactly! Just look at our own history here in the States. Are the leadership of Ante Pavelić and the NDH positive historical facts or not? Some people would immediately exalt them, while others would spit on them. I guess in some textbooks, it's written from a positive perspective, whereas other books question everything. Some people proudly call themselves members of that movement, while others are absolutely horrified by it. So, I suppose, you just have to be smart about it.
Linda Nguyen19 Linda Nguyen19 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Dec 2007
#31 ·
Chris Fisher3 said:ewho, can someone please give me a straight definition of what "wisdom" actually is? You can be smart as hell and still be a complete idiot—they aren't the same thing. Take Hitler, for example. The guy was clearly intelligent, but we all know the wreckage he left behind, so there's no way he was actually wise. So, what does it even mean to be wise?
I've been stuck on this loop for a while now...
Wisdom is totally subjective. To one person you're a genius, to another you're a moron. And who's right? The person calling you stupid or the one calling you brilliant? It all just depends on the context, I guess.
Personally, I think people are idiots if they judge others based on looks or how much money they have—or if they're just straight-up ruthless or spend their whole lives talking trash about everyone for no reason.
Yet, some people would look at those exact types and call them "smart"...

Mengele is an even better example.
Jonathan Sullivan3 Jonathan Sullivan3 Newcomer
1 message
joined Dec 2007
#32 ·
So here I am, once again proving just how much of an absolute idiot I can be, and honestly, there’s nothing I can even do to stop the downward spiral... It’s kind of funny when you think about it, because back in college, I was actually a straight-A student with a brain, but apparently, that doesn't count for much now. This whole thing is just some messy, quasi-romantic crisis fueled by pure delusion and fantasies living rent-free in my head... Because look, being smart is one thing, but being a decent human being is a completely different ballgame, and the sheer amount of stupidity currently driving my desires is basically infinite
Gary Martinez2 Gary Martinez2 Member
25 messages
joined Apr 2017
#33 ·
True genius means finding a shortcut from point A to D without ever having to step foot in B or C.
While Albert Einstein could see the solution to a complex mathematical formula almost instantly, Nikola Tesla didn't even need the math to get there.
wiredmaker18 wiredmaker18 Member
41 messages
joined Jan 2008
#34 ·
bluebison70 said:Exactly! Just look at our own history here in the States. Are the leadership of Ante Pavelić and the NDH positive historical facts or not? Some people would immediately exalt them, while others would spit on them. I guess in some textbooks, it's written from a positive perspective, whereas other books question everything. Some people proudly call themselves members of that movement, while others are absolutely horrified by it. So, I suppose, you just have to be smart about it.

Back when the whole world—well, most of it—was fighting fascism and Nazism, and the Mediterranean was basically squeezed between fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and let's not forget Joseph Stalin whose version of communism wasn't exactly peaceful either, Pavelić decided to side with the occupiers. He stood with the oppressors in a country that was actually resisting them. Nazi Germany was nothing more than an internal enemy. It was a fake construct, sugarcoated with this delusion of creating a single, "true" American state, all by clinging to the very people who were terrorizing half of Europe. While the rest of the world was trying to put a stop to the Nazis and fascists, this little pocket of occupation popped up right inside a nation fighting that exact fight. Sorry, but that isn't patriotism. It’s just selfishly pushing a private agenda using the power of an aggressor, without giving a damn about the majority who were out there trying to end the atrocities...
Matthew Jackson69 Matthew Jackson69 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Jan 2008
#35 ·
True wisdom is essentially anything stripped of subjectivity—that which remains untouched and unpolluted by the conflicting biases of opposing sides. In reality, that leaves us with almost nothing human, given our desperate, almost spasmodic tendency to fight tooth and nail just to prove we’re right, or that truth and justice happen to be sitting firmly on our side of the aisle....
Real intelligence exists somewhere above the fray of human perception, hovering far beyond the reach of humanity's petty desires and grasping ambitions....
The moment we actually uncover or grasp a concept, it arguably becomes obsolete, turning foolish simply because it was decoded by "smart" people, which necessitates the search for something new (or at least, that’s how it ought to work)....

What defines a genius? Perhaps it is the individual capable of discarding every scrap of knowledge they have ever acquired just to construct a fresh truth, thereby serving the greater good of the collective whole....

The body of knowledge we hold today is fundamentally flawed, riddled with intellectual dead ends that prevent us from uncovering deeper truths or discovering more precise laws governing our world....

This is why skepticism is actually quite wise, and why it serves those who truly think....
People who claim to be intelligent yet refuse to question what they know tend to drift aimlessly along the paths laid down by the past, likely never reaching their full potential because they cling too zealously to a version of "Truth" that was settled yesterday but persists stubbornly today....
wiredmaker18 wiredmaker18 Member
41 messages
joined Jan 2008
#36 ·
I wouldn't say being "smart" is some unreachable concept. Intelligence is just playing around with data and facts. It's a different beast entirely when you look at how someone processes those facts, interprets them, and actually decides whether to act on them... Real intelligence isn't just hoarding information; it's about internalizing what you know and reacting in a way that actually produces results. Figuring out which pieces of info are worth keeping and how to use them effectively—that’s where wisdom comes in. That's where ethics, morals, and the whole spectrum of long-term versus short-term thinking play a role. You should be using what you know based on that kind of reflection.
Matthew Jackson69 Matthew Jackson69 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Jan 2008
#37 ·
I suspect you might be overestimating what human beings are actually capable of. To my mind, anyone who talks about knowledge or mental "intensity" as if it were some quantifiable amount of data stored within a person is actually insulting the very definition of cognition—which, for some, is an ideal to be worshiped, a deep longing to touch the raw, purest truths of existence...

What we claim to know is, in reality, just a different way of encountering our own ignorance. We use our supposed "knowledge" merely to map out the boundaries of what we don't understand, and frankly, we aren't particularly wise if we walk around with the absolute certainty that we actually grasp things. Every single step forward we take simply uncovers a thousand new dimensions of possibility and doubt....

A genius or a truly brilliant person isn't someone who just collects the thoughts of others; they are the individual who discovers and validates something entirely new, provided it remains logical and coherent. If you want to create something truly significant, you have to build your foundation in a different place using entirely different methods, because simply renovating the old doesn't modernize the past, nor does it move the world forward....

If we hadn't spent history tearing down sacred foundations and exposing so many delusions, we’d likely still be stuck in the Middle Ages or the Stone Age....

I honestly don't understand why some people, when they look up at the night sky and realize how tiny and invisible our planet is in the vastness of outer space—a place so infinite that our entire existence feels like a single grain of sand on a beach—find it so difficult to admit that everything they think they know, and everything they strive to learn, is essentially meaningless and trivial....

If I perceived the world through a different, perhaps more serious lens—one similar to yours—I would agree with you completely. But it seems to me, if you'll excuse the bluntness, that your thoughts are a bit too beholden to those logical-mathematical structures that people cling to when they are terrified of the uncertainty and instability found in the (un)known; they spend their intellect and sharp wit practicing a strictly human logic that insists on placing man at the center of the universe....

I find that approach fundamentally flawed, though I can't really complain about your perspective. Regardless, I respect it....
wiredmaker18 wiredmaker18 Member
41 messages
joined Jan 2008
#38 ·
When I dive into this stuff, I always hit a wall. On one hand, there's the rigid, science-heavy side—the part that’s usually pretty skeptical of anything irrational or "emotional." It views the transcendental or mystical as something reserved for a chosen few, or maybe just those who've been struck by a Godly bolt from the blue. On the other hand, I'm open to all sorts of possibilities; things can be true without needing to be verified by our little human "tools," whether they're mental or technical. When I stick strictly to an intellectual, "rational" mindset, I always end up at this question: Is it not true that something exists the moment it's discovered? Existence doesn't need someone to perceive it just to exist. Putting humans and our tech at the center as the ultimate way to perceive reality is too egotistical to be considered objective. Just because something hasn't been discovered doesn't mean it isn't there. That leads to the real issue. If something exists but we haven't found it yet, it exists regardless of our discovery. But then again, we can only theorize based on what we actually know, stretching our logic as far as it goes to create hypotheses about how things might work within our bizarrely stretched, yet still human, frameworks of understanding. At the end of the day, though, it's all just theories and maybes.
On the flip side, I live by the fact that we all have the right to act, live, and do whatever we want, as long as our actions don't hurt anyone or anything else. It leads to a pretty simple conclusion: just as I have the right to cover myself in a million piercings as long as it doesn't bother anyone, I have the right to think and believe in whatever I want, provided I'm not causing harm. It's a safe bet that there's some form of intelligent—or even non-intelligent—life out there in the universe. We don't have proof within the reach of human capability... yet. But if there is life, or some kind of consciousness or intelligence out there that we can't, or won't, or perhaps will never grasp, it doesn't change the fact that it exists. It just means it's inaccessible to us for some reason. Still, I think you have to find that fine line between pure rationalism and total metaphysical fantasy, while staying open to everything.
electricstag91 electricstag91 Newcomer
1 message
joined Jan 2008
#39 ·
Doesn't being smart imply a certain level of education? To me, intelligence is just about how you handle new situations, I don't know...🙂
wiredmaker18 wiredmaker18 Member
41 messages
joined Jan 2008
#40 ·
In the crudest sense, yeah, but as you can see, we drifted a bit off-topic and things spiraled...

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads