what does "smart" mean to you? Options

[Yer]

Really? I've scored anywhere from 82 to 130 on online IQ tests. I've never taken an official one, though, but I plan to. I'm guessing I'm around 110-115, which would be only slightly above average. I'm alright in math; I would get bad grades in high school from a lack of interest and (according to my psychologist) depression. But when I want to, I can be straight A material. Being an underachiever, though, I've always settled for high B's and low A's. Now, I understand how IQ works for the most part, now what I want to know is WHY. It's frustrating since we're still in the beginning stages of understanding how the human brain works, and intelligence simply can't be relegated to a series of problems. First, we have to define intelligence. Something tells me we still won't be close to understanding completely even 300 years from now. Still, it's an area I love to discuss and learn more about.

I wouldn't take online IQ tests seriously. I thought they were supposed to ask for age but a lot of them don't.

Grades don't even begin to cover it. It also depends on which grades from which course at which school.

To me those two words are not interchangeable. You can be intelligent without being smart.
Intelligence is primarily the assimilation of data. Being smart is knowing how to use it.

I knew a guy who could design nuclear powered engines, but had trouble holding a conversation with anyone, or understanding the simplest tasks he need to accomplish to get through his senior year in highschool. Very intelligent, but not smart at all.

Most people are smart about some things and not so good at other things, so even though I prefer people I would classify as intelligent and smart I know there will be other things that I just have to overlook no matter who they are.

Never thought of it that way. To me they were always just synonyms. I guess it's because I see smart/intelligent as general terms that can encompass more specific things like crafty, clever, insightful, witty, etc.

On a similar note, I know some people who are superb students and intellectually capable who I'd still classify as idiots... just based on the fact that the things they say are lacking in social sense and morally repugnant. For example, I find ultra-nationalists stupid no matter what. They can be the most accomplished intellectuals in the world for all I care, but they're basically stupid in that they hold onto stupid ideas with no logical basis or practical use.

Societies, culture, and media might influence our perceptions, but we have the ability to change them. We’re not robots who repeat everything we learn from others; we have the ability for independent thought. My own beliefs and understanding are constantly changing on a daily basis. And for the record, Einstein was classified as a mediocre student. This adds to my argument that people will add more merit to academic achievement than to independent thought. In fact, many of the greatest scientists had ideas that the public scoffed. Imagine if society had convinced them that they were wasting their time and conform to what everyone else was doing instead.

I love how some people like to separate themselves from the idea of society. It's not some beast that walks on its own. Actually, I don't think academic achievement is as half as respected as random feats of ingenuity. Given the choice, nobody wants to be the one that has to work harder than others to get to where they want to be. Most people want to be born talented, which is why certain "creative" personalities (ex. Einstein, Michael Jackson) are idolized so much.

myth about creativity

Is that your blog?

I was going to make a thread on creativity (and desisted). This was what I was going to write:

"My conclusion is that creativity isn't just some magical "stuff" that arises out of the unfiltered brains of the innocents, but something also very closely connected with practical knowledge and the ability to think logically.

Possibly another major problem is that people tend to want to think as little as possible. So when something goes awry in a familiar procedure, the automatic response is to get stuck or complain rather than actively try to think of a viable solution."

I defined creativity as the ability to use available resources to come up with a novel and innovative solution. Most people have trouble being creative because they're limited by inertia, illogical tropes and bullsh!t spewed by other people. I didn't even consider artistic creativity, but there you go. It's fairly easy to come up with unusual ideas, not so easy to convey them in a useful or effective way.

[initially]

As for Asians being smarter, I disagree. Why smart? For being studious and placing priority above all else on academic achievement? Again, I don't buy it. Here's something I read on another forum: The user was a white college student, she was used to studying with other white students, but just once she improvised and went to study with her Asian friends (sorry, ethnicity wasn't mentioned). She explained how she was shocked, like literally mindf*cked when she found how they studied. She said they would simply ask, "What do you think the professor wants us to know?" and "What do you think is going to be on the test?" and start memorizing by the book, whereas the white counterparts would start discussions outside of the class material and try to stimulate creative thought. Reading this seriously put things into perspective for me. I'm not saying one is smarter than the others (I'd have to generalize first), but it does help you understand why one would seem smarter than the other.

That doesn't prove anything, it could be 2 different groups taking 2 different approach to studying. One is doing the actual studying the other is doing a bit of socializing.

Really? I've scored anywhere from 82 to 130 on online IQ tests. I've never taken an official one, though, but I plan to. I'm guessing I'm around 110-115, which would be only slightly above average. I'm alright in math; I would get bad grades in high school from a lack of interest and (according to my psychologist) depression. But when I want to, I can be straight A material. Being an underachiever, though, I've always settled for high B's and low A's. Now, I understand how IQ works for the most part, now what I want to know is WHY. It's frustrating since we're still in the beginning stages of understanding how the human brain works, and intelligence simply can't be relegated to a series of problems. First, we have to define intelligence. Something tells me we still won't be close to understanding completely even 300 years from now. Still, it's an area I love to discuss and learn more about.

Guys, would you consider me "smart"? Why or why not.. ?

Being smart is knowing how to use your intelligence to the best of your ability. IQ tests only test your ability to think logically using numbers, patterns and processes, does that mean that artists and musicians are dumb?

And for the record, Einstein was classified as a mediocre student.

For the record he was not a mediocre student.

[JakeCutter]

@Yer Of course grades don’t begin to cover it; I was merely pointing out that those who tend to get good grades in school are given more attention than those who don’t. When I would do well in class, I was given extra praise by both teachers and fellow peers. I had more credibility, it seemed, than those times I would go around class material and come to conclusions on my own outside of class. The information was just as valid, people just didn’t take me seriously since I wasn’t a school kid. Since I didn’t conform to other people’s expectations.

I know plenty of students who would do well in class, but whom I had labeled idiots outside of that setting. In some ways, I was more intellectual than they were. Sure, they’d do all their work and study, but probably out of necessity rather than a strong interest to learn. Outside some were party animals or had very mundane lives. In other words boring (from my perspective). They knew the book inside and out, yet I’d still outsmart them in front of everyone just to prove a point.

@initially Perhaps not, but it does add weight to the argument that East and West would have different stances towards learning. While most people think of the East and education, they associate conformity and subservience towards authority. With the West, it’s more questioning and even revolutionary. Again, these are not my perspectives, but what I’ve picked up from others. And aren’t both groups socializing in a study group? I don’t see how different stances towards learning have anything to do with it. One is going by conventional methods and the other more outside the box.

Are some artists and musicians dumb? I don’t know, just watch the news and tell me. And are you basing your argument on the premise that all artists and musicians have low IQ scores? There have been studies where IQ was correlated with pay, and I know plenty of artists who have or had day jobs. Programming, law, business, etc.

And maybe it’s a myth that Einstein was a mediocre student, but it doesn’t change the fact that there are probably dozens of other examples of successful people who didn’t do that well in school. Bill Gates dropped out of college, and look where he is now. I don’t think a “dumb” person would be able to get where he is now, even with tremendous effort.

[Yer]

@Yer Of course grades don’t begin to cover it; I was merely pointing out that those who tend to get good grades in school are given more attention than those who don’t. When I would do well in class, I was given extra praise by both teachers and fellow peers. I had more credibility, it seemed, than those times I would go around class material and come to conclusions on my own outside of class. The information was just as valid, people just didn’t take me seriously since I wasn’t a school kid. Since I didn’t conform to other people’s expectations.

I meant at the college level. I don't think professors pay a lot of attention to individual students either way. People at my school don't really discuss grades. It's mostly assumed that you're doing B to A level work. If you're not, you're kind of fu-ked, or at least in theory.

It's fine to do outside research, but you definitely won't get points for ignoring class material. You can develop your own ideas later but it's better to get a good grasp of the conventions first.

I know plenty of students who would do well in class, but whom I had labeled idiots outside of that setting. In some ways, I was more intellectual than they were. Sure, they’d do all their work and study, but probably out of necessity rather than a strong interest to learn. Outside some were party animals or had very mundane lives. In other words boring (from my perspective). They knew the book inside and out, yet I’d still outsmart them in front of everyone just to prove a point.

Maybe you should clarify in what ways they were idiots. They just sound like regular people to me.

@initially Perhaps not, but it does add weight to the argument that East and West would have different stances towards learning. While most people think of the East and education, they associate conformity and subservience towards authority. With the West, it’s more questioning and even revolutionary. Again, these are not my perspectives, but what I’ve picked up from others. And aren’t both groups socializing in a study group? I don’t see how different stances towards learning have anything to do with it. One is going by conventional methods and the other more outside the box.

There's still no evidence to show that that's how Asians study in general or how white people study in general. I've seen both methods being used by both races. It's not even a cultural thing. Some people are ambitious but hate school (and thus try to game the system) and some people genuinely like discussing stuff.

[JakeCutter]

And fu-ked I was, up until my second semester lol. I compare my first year of college to being thrown off a plane with no parachute. Somehow, finally, I've found land. Every student experiences struggles in the beginning, though. And I usually try to learn conventions and key ideas before doing any outside work. It's common to see me looking through old textbooks for a specific piece of information. Like today I was working matrices problems and thinking, "It's as fun as Sudoku!"

Idiots? It's just my opinion, but drunk driving, unprotected sex, and theft were enough for me to label them as such. I have a bad tendency to judge people early on, and this is what I consider a weakness. Some I've changed my perceptions on since. I like to give everyone the benefit of a doubt.

*shrug* Since you and djay were raised in Asia, maybe you could add your own experiences here? I can only go by second hand sources. And your last sentence describes me to a fault.

[initially]

@initially Perhaps not, but it does add weight to the argument that East and West would have different stances towards learning. While most people think of the East and education, they associate conformity and subservience towards authority. With the West, it’s more questioning and even revolutionary. Again, these are not my perspectives, but what I’ve picked up from others. And aren’t both groups socializing in a study group? I don’t see how different stances towards learning have anything to do with it. One is going by conventional methods and the other more outside the box.

Are some artists and musicians dumb? I don’t know, just watch the news and tell me. And are you basing your argument on the premise that all artists and musicians have low IQ scores? There have been studies where IQ was correlated with pay, and I know plenty of artists who have or had day jobs. Programming, law, business, etc.

And maybe it’s a myth that Einstein was a mediocre student, but it doesn’t change the fact that there are probably dozens of other examples of successful people who didn’t do that well in school. Bill Gates dropped out of college, and look where he is now. I don’t think a “dumb” person would be able to get where he is now, even with tremendous effort.

What?? You keep owning yourself.

- Einstein was a great student, "smart" people like keep reading his scoreline the wrong way:

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/question...-a-poor-student

- Coincidently the above link answers the next question about Bill Gates. He might have dropped out of college but it was HARVARD. Plus, he graduated eventually.

- You really think that white people have some special powers for thinking outside of the box? Smart people do that and they come in all kinds of colors, shapes and sizes.

- How are IQ tests a good way to test musicians and artists?

[ClassicalMusic]

smart means you have the rationale to test a idea yourself before brushing it aside.

[InitialDJay]

I tend to believe that both nature and nurture play a role in a person's mental development. What I've been trying to figure out is which plays a bigger role? I liken the situation to a video game: Everyone starts off on the same level, and has the choice to proceed however they wish. Some will make more bad choices than others, some will get to the end faster. Some won't make it at all. And of course, you have the choice of choosing different characters. One might have speed and no defense or hp, while another might have huge attack and hp but no speed, while there is another that is evenly balanced in all three areas. What am I saying? I'm saying we might be born with different potentials for success, but our environments and choices also play a huge a role. Some people will work harder to get to the top, while others will waste their potential and stay on the first level.

If it makes a difference, there HAVE been studies where they have observed adopted Asian children and twins who were raised by white foster parents from an early age. They seemed to score around the same as other Asian students, although their parents didn't highly encourage them to take mathematics seriously like stereotypical Asian parents (although I can find alternative explanations for such phenomena). There was another study done where they observed black children who were raised middle class had better educational and career success than those raised in impoverished environments in the inner city. But this makes me wonder: Which came first? Are they successful in school because coming from a middle class family where educational expectations are high, or do those with "smarter" genes make it to the top and pass those values down to their children, reinforcing the chances of success?

I can, and I have. Every online IQ test differs, in that some will have more questions than others, different formats, and time limits. The one time I scored 82 I had pulled an all nighter for two days and had not ate for hours, so my mental alertness went down dramatically. It was on a site that records your IP address so you can't take it again, or I would have later, after getting a day's sleep. There are no right or wrong answers on these tests either. So perhaps I would have tried harder, if I had been able to (or planned ahead by waiting to take the test later).

And I believe those you choose to associate with will have an impact on your thoughts and behaviors, even if minimal. I went to a horribly funded public school, and no one took education seriously. On top of that, my parents were always away at work and too tired to give me much educational encouragement. I had to push myself, and finding motivation to take class seriously was not easy. But, I did spend a good deal of time in libraries, museums, zoos, foreign cities, and the internet, so in essence I was receiving an education (outside of class). Even now I find myself doing my own research projects online when I should be studying for my official college courses. Still, I somehow wing it and keep my GPA up.

Societies, culture, and media might influence our perceptions, but we have the ability to change them. We're not robots who repeat everything we learn from others; we have the ability for independent thought. My own beliefs and understanding are constantly changing on a daily basis. And for the record, Einstein was classified as a mediocre student. This adds to my argument that people will add more merit to academic achievement than to independent thought. In fact, many of the greatest scientists had ideas that the public scoffed. Imagine if society had convinced them that they were wasting their time and conform to what everyone else was doing instead.

And I want to agree with the last part, but ancient civilizations and minds make me want to seriously doubt it. Advanced technologically, yes. I believe people processed different types of information in the past. In fact, there is a debate that people are dumbing down thanks to technological improvements, since we rely on it so much compared to in the past, and are losing our abilities to cope without it. Calculators, for instance. If we dropped an electrical engineer in the jungle, would he have the advantage, or a native who is actually familiar with the surroundings? From certain perspectives, we can say that humans are devolving.

my opinion is that both heredity and environment contribute to intelligence. however, that does not mean that if you take a kid from race A and another from race B, put them in exact environment, and raise them with a neutral adopted parent C that these two kids are guaranteed to have equal success or intelligence. the problem with the argument such as nature vs nurture or environment vs gene in shaping intelligent development is that genetic variations can be influenced by environmental factors. thus, most people agreed environment is the absolute function of environment. my argument against that is it's not quite as simple considered the fact that the possibility that environment affecting gene is unpredictably random. so to answer you which factor plays a bigger role, i favor gene, but i acknowledge that environment shapes our minimum intelligence while gene aids in reaching maximum intelligent potential. and i would classified intelligence as adaptation to situational dynamics, which include brain processing speed, technical expertise, life experience, and intellectual knowledge (ie booksmart).

well, the lack of focus explains that huge difference in IQ score. that's why i said that you're not giving maximum effort. my point is that it doesn't matter what IQ test you're taking because i'd realize IQ test differs. it's the huge difference in your score which is not a reflection of IQ mechanism, but it is the concentration level. a 50pts IQ difference is impossible if taken by standard test.

it had been documented that Einstein and other creative "thinking outside the box" types had a specific mark in their neuron that allowed them to be the genius that they were. with that said, you need to have a degree of luck and pursuit the right field of study to maximize that genius potential in order to be successful at your natural talent. if you have this genius mark and don't utilize it, then it does not matter. people who won awards, like nobel prize or fields medal in mathematics, tend to have extreme concentration level that make them who they are, an intelligent person. i went to a professor's office who was a nobel laureate, i knocked on his door several times while he was concentrating on his work that he didn't even respond. sometime, i wonder had i knock on his head would he responds sooner? well he finally answered after i spoke up. this concentrating level is what truly separating an intellectual and a random joe.

i think it's misleading to claim humans are devolving from the perspective of capitalizing technological knowledge. perhaps, devolving in isolated case because devolving actually defying evolution, and i haven't see a convincing evidence against evolution. from evolutionary perspective, modern human is unquestionably more complex socially and emotionally. on average, we can processed information faster, more educated, and better equipped to cope with environmental change. hence, this reflect today people are more intelligent than ancient people. there have been studies to support this trend of IQ exponential growth rate. however, argument that IQ is showing regression is not because we're dumber, instead it is due to complacency. also it's unfair to compare an electrical engineer to a native of that environment, don't you think? to have unbiased comparison, i bet you an average joe of modern society will outdo, outwit, and outperform an average joe of ancient period if both are put in a jungle, savanna, desert, or some mountain terrain. you know why? the answer is man vs wild.

[KraterosHellas]

being not stupid

[Yer]

And fu-ked I was, up until my second semester lol. I compare my first year of college to being thrown off a plane with no parachute. Somehow, finally, I've found land. Every student experiences struggles in the beginning, though. And I usually try to learn conventions and key ideas before doing any outside work. It's common to see me looking through old textbooks for a specific piece of information. Like today I was working matrices problems and thinking, "It's as fun as Sudoku!"

Idiots? It's just my opinion, but drunk driving, unprotected sex, and theft were enough for me to label them as such. I have a bad tendency to judge people early on, and this is what I consider a weakness. Some I've changed my perceptions on since. I like to give everyone the benefit of a doubt.

*shrug* Since you and djay were raised in Asia, maybe you could add your own experiences here? I can only go by second hand sources. And your last sentence describes me to a fault.

I was raised in Asia until the second grade. Which doesn't really count. lol

I was sequestered with the high-achieving crowd all throughout high school. We all pretty much took the same classes, the same tests and I didn't notice any major differences between the Asians and the non-Asians. There wasn't any big racial divide so it wasn't even like white kids studied with white kids and Asians studied with Asians.

I'm in college now. In general, international students (including students from Asia) study harder. I don't know about studying just to get by or learning for the sake of learning. My impression is that everyone does both to some extent. That's basically it.

[InitialDJay]

I was raised in Asia until the second grade. Which doesn't really count. lol

I was sequestered with the high-achieving crowd all throughout high school. We all pretty much took the same classes, the same tests and I didn't notice any major differences between the Asians and the non-Asians. There wasn't any big racial divide so it wasn't even like white kids studied with white kids and Asians studied with Asians.

I'm in college now. In general, international students (including students from Asia) study harder. I don't know about studying just to get by or learning for the sake of learning. My impression is that everyone does both to some extent. That's basically it.

you're a child prodigy, aren't u?

actually if you're living in a less asian population in a white dominant area, then you wouldn't see racial division. here, where i live, it's very diverse.. so schools have different colors. mostly white is still dominant color, but i can tell asians are studying differently than white. i would say it has to do with family pressure cuz of culture. other than that, the performance between white/asian is largely the same if a white kid put the same amount of work/study. for hispanic/black, they tend to underachieve in less popular class (math, science) but are good in other areas.. like physical education and language class.

asians indeed hang out with other asians of their ethnicities with some white (mostly white that emphasizes on education) ride along with those studious asians.

[JakeCutter]

This might be getting off topic, but there has been a correlation between geniuses and MBTI type. Einstein, Tesla, and Newton were all of the NT temperament (intellects). Most people from this personality type go into the philosophical or scientific fields, while those from the SJ temperament (guardians) make up a huge majority of those in the military and law enforcement; they also make up the dominant type in most societies.

I think international students study harder because not only do they come from more academically challenging environments, but they also had to work harder to get here and make it to a foreign university. They had to sacrifice more and they've got more on the line imo.

Anyway, I think it's strange now that I'm in community college taking courses with kids who were in GATE during elementary. They don't seem that different, and I know I even challenged one last year in my Intro to Ling class. I was never tested, myself, but who knows? I have my strengths and weaknesses and am aware of what fields and careers are suited for me. I'm on the right track.

[Yer]

you're a child prodigy, aren't u?

actually if you're living in a less asian population in a white dominant area, then you wouldn't see racial division. here, where i live, it's very diverse.. so schools have different colors. mostly white is still dominant color, but i can tell asians are studying differently than white. i would say it has to do with family pressure cuz of culture. other than that, the performance between white/asian is largely the same if a white kid put the same amount of work/study. for hispanic/black, they tend to underachieve in less popular class (math, science) but are good in other areas.. like physical education and language class.

asians indeed hang out with other asians of their ethnicities with some white (mostly white that emphasizes on education) ride along with those studious asians.

Aw hell naw.

I remember my parents trying to train me for some math contest when I was little but I just cheated all through the workbooks. I mean, come on, the answers were in the back.

This might be getting off topic, but there has been a correlation between geniuses and MBTI type. Einstein, Tesla, and Newton were all of the NT temperament (intellects). Most people from this personality type go into the philosophical or scientific fields, while those from the SJ temperament (guardians) make up a huge majority of those in the military and law enforcement; they also make up the dominant type in most societies.

I think international students study harder because not only do they come from more academically challenging environments, but they also had to work harder to get here and make it to a foreign university. They had to sacrifice more and they've got more on the line imo.

Anyway, I think it's strange now that I'm in community college taking courses with kids who were in GATE during elementary. They don't seem that different, and I know I even challenged one last year in my Intro to Ling class. I was never tested, myself, but who knows? I have my strengths and weaknesses and am aware of what fields and careers are suited for me. I'm on the right track.

You know why I wouldn't go into art or the humanities? Because humans basically seem like funny animals to me and I don't see anything worth glorifying.

From what I know of gifted programs in elementary school, they're pretty much useless. I think if I wanted to give my kids some kind of accelerated learning experience I'd get a private tutor or make them read a lot of books.

[InitialDJay]

This might be getting off topic, but there has been a correlation between geniuses and MBTI type. Einstein, Tesla, and Newton were all of the NT temperament (intellects). Most people from this personality type go into the philosophical or scientific fields, while those from the SJ temperament (guardians) make up a huge majority of those in the military and law enforcement; they also make up the dominant type in most societies.

I think international students study harder because not only do they come from more academically challenging environments, but they also had to work harder to get here and make it to a foreign university. They had to sacrifice more and they've got more on the line imo.

Anyway, I think it's strange now that I'm in community college taking courses with kids who were in GATE during elementary. They don't seem that different, and I know I even challenged one last year in my Intro to Ling class. I was never tested, myself, but who knows? I have my strengths and weaknesses and am aware of what fields and careers are suited for me. I'm on the right track.

do you know of any online site that you can take the test and give you what type you are?

[JakeCutter]

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes1.htm
http://www.mypersonality.info/
http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm

[islander]

Smart means




My cousin just got one this same color. For those that have no auto knowledge, this is a Mercedes-Benz Smart For-Two. Smart For-Three supposedly on the market by 2014.

It has three Cylinders and costs $14000. With the transmission you can choose between automatic or standard. On stamdard transmission the clutch is automatic which means no standard clutch for the driver to work. Also, has Air Conditioner and eight air bags.

40-50 MPG miles per gallon

This post has been edited by islander: Apr 23 2011, 05:14 PM

[InitialDJay]

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes1.htm
http://www.mypersonality.info/
http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm

wow thanks. just finished taking this jung test. it's easy, just yes/no.

i answered the question very carefully. i got this INTJ.

You are:

• distinctively expressed introvert
• distinctively expressed intuitive personality
• distinctively expressed thinking personality
• distinctively expressed judging personality

what's your?

Aw hell naw.

I remember my parents trying to train me for some math contest when I was little but I just cheated all through the workbooks. I mean, come on, the answers were in the back.


You know why I wouldn't go into art or the humanities? Because humans basically seem like funny animals to me and I don't see anything worth glorifying.

From what I know of gifted programs in elementary school, they're pretty much useless. I think if I wanted to give my kids some kind of accelerated learning experience I'd get a private tutor or make them read a lot of books.

hopeless? jk i think you're smart, yer. not too many people can do what you did. and if you have kids, it's best to teach them yourself. kids usually listen to their parents moreso than others. having a parent teaching them at early age would do wonder for them when they get older.

This post has been edited by InitialDJay: Apr 23 2011, 11:10 PM

[JakeCutter]

Originally pegged as an ISTJ, but now undecided as an INTx. Personally, I think I lean closer to INTJ, but.. I won't label myself until I'm 100% sure. You should try reading up on that type, and see if it fits you. A lot of people seem to mistype themselves the first time.

[mya89]

Something I've been thinking about... what do you mean when you say someone is smart/intelligent? Is there a certain threshold of general intelligence where you can describe someone as smart, or do you believe in different kinds of smartness/intelligence?

Personally, I think it's kind of a loose word. A person can be smart and dumb at the same time. For instance, you can be smart in dealing with people but not in advanced mathematics. Also, the perception of an IQ as high or low changes depends on circumstance. I know some people who'd think 110 is a very good IQ and some people who'd say it's low. I'd say it's kind of a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" thing.

I noticed some people here claiming Asians are smarter or that they prefer smart people as dating/marriage partners. What does that mean? Is a 5 point difference in average IQ a big deal? How smart is smart enough?

The perfect kind of smart that's perfect in my eyes is a good mixture of people/street smart and academic intelligence. I would say >135 IQ and good people skills and good humour skills.

like the question btw!

[Yer]

I want an electric car or one that runs on algae.

wow thanks. just finished taking this jung test. it's easy, just yes/no.

i answered the question very carefully. i got this INTJ.

You are:

• distinctively expressed introvert
• distinctively expressed intuitive personality
• distinctively expressed thinking personality
• distinctively expressed judging personality

what's your?


hopeless? jk i think you're smart, yer. not too many people can do what you did. and if you have kids, it's best to teach them yourself. kids usually listen to their parents moreso than others. having a parent teaching them at early age would do wonder for them when they get older.

lol I guessed right!
I get INTP.

I think I'm smart, but I don't want to come off as over-confident.

Originally pegged as an ISTJ, but now undecided as an INTx. Personally, I think I lean closer to INTJ, but.. I won't label myself until I'm 100% sure. You should try reading up on that type, and see if it fits you. A lot of people seem to mistype themselves the first time.

Kind of irrelevant, but my ideal smart person is ENTP.

The perfect kind of smart that's perfect in my eyes is a good mixture of people/street smart and academic intelligence. I would say >135 IQ and good people skills and good humour skills.

like the question btw!

Same here. & thank you.