Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

People who think being academic means intelligence watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There are many types of "intelligence". Having a PhD in theoretical physics means you're an academic/intellectual. But does it mean you automatically have "social intelligence"? No. "Intelligence" is an uncertain and ambiguous term in modern day life. For instance: A degree from Oxford doesn't mean you will 100% become a rich and successful person. Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate, became one of the wealthiest historical figures because he understood human nature and knew how to expertly deal with people. There were many other people under him who knew more about steel than he did.

    Emotional and social intelligence is vastly underrated.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Academic talent is about doing well in exams and assessments what does it have to do with intelligence perse.

    Most famous inventors never even went to Uni !
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    I think that the view of intelligence is entirely subjective- doing well in exams isn't really a fair indication of intelligence. I got 2A* and an A during my A-level yet my IQ is only 104. My parents never went to University, but I still consider them to be much more intelligent then me. I think it all depends upon what you would define as intelligence.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think I'msoacademic is the perfect example of why the two are not inextricably linked.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alkain1607)
    I think that the view of intelligence is entirely subjective- doing well in exams isn't really a fair indication of intelligence. I got 2A* and an A during my A-level yet my IQ is only 104. My parents never went to University, but I still consider them to be much more intelligent then me. I think it all depends upon what you would define as intelligence.
    I'd say that A Level performance is a much better indicator of intelligence than IQ testing; although both are extremely flawed methods of measuring such an ill-defined concept.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I think intelligent and academic people are different types of people, but both of which overlap. For instance there are particular studies that would be seen as academic, such as Maths, the sciences, and the humanities. Artistic and creative people who study the arts, cooking and textiles may not be academic, but that doesn't mean they're not intelligent. Intelligence to me means being logical and having common sense, whereas being academic is associated with studies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    I agree completely. I am studying veterinary medicine, which is a pretty decent achievement academically to get on to, but to be honest that doesn't really make me particularly intelligent. it saddens me a bit when I have friends putting themselves down and saying I am smarter just because they have not done as well academically, when I actually consider them smarter than half the people on my course in many ways.
    Ditto, only I'm a medical student! People just instantly assume you're clever, i know many people who aren't very 'academic' who are sharp, shrewd people and vice versa
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shuheb789)
    I sense false modesty here.
    Don't exactly need to be a psychoanalyst to notice it.

    (Original post by Mother_Russia)
    What do you think?
    I think 'smart' is just like any other 'behavioural quality' and is not reducible and very hard to define. Most of these terms are just collective labels for quality/qualities that appear to show similar outcomes and characteristics. But no one really claims intelligence is a one-dimensional element or property.

    To my opinion i think intelligence is the ability to 'network' information in a highly coordinated manner. People who have a strong structured network are intelligent, and the less structured it is, the less intelligent you are.

    I think of information as being like balls of datum and these balls are connected to other balls by metal bars. I think of knowledge as the whole system: all the balls and all the bars.

    I think of the networking is how one ball is connected to another. In stronger networks, one ball has many bars to many different balls, which in turn have many bars to many different balls etc. The result is that you can travel from ball A to ball B through numerous paths: it can either be direct or it can be through travelling through numerous different balls but eventually reach B.

    Which is sort of related to what you see empirically: someone may know the answer(E) to a question(A) by having memorised the answer for this question (i.e by making a direct link from ball E to ball A). Whereas someone else may not answer it by directly recalling it, but by deducing it through other knowledge (i.e going from ball A to ball B to ball C to ball E). If someone has a wide network of balls and multiple bars, there are numerous paths they can use to go from ball A to ball E.

    I see the process of going from one ball to the other as 'thinking'
    And the number of different ways you can from A to E as 'intuition'



    The reason i having this analogy is based on this:



    - It is easy to create a ball when receiving information and connect it to few balls (short term memory)

    - It is harder to connect that ball to multiple different balls to create very large networks of information. But when you do, you can reach this ball starting from a huge amount of different starting balls. Since there are so many connections, this ball stays firmly in place (long term memory)

    ^this is also what i think as 'understanding'

    - Have you ever noticing how very commonly the 'top dogs' in academia are having track record of being top-dog from the start? The network is having firm foundation from beginning and all further connections have more effect in a well network structure than a poor network structure. i.e one new ball will connect to balls that are connect to many balls, rather than being connected to balls that are connect to fewer balls.

    this way, once you beginning strong intelligent, is easier to keep being more intelligent

    to my opinion this may being alternative speculation to why some people appearing to be 'born smart', maybe is not genetic?




    People who are having very good memory can making single ball to ball links that last longer than normal and do not need to necessarily need to be in a strong network to stay connect. But is the network that is the intelligence. You may be able to remember information well, but when you need to use it with other knowledge it is no very useful at all just being able to recall it. It is useful for doing test or examination, though.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mullah.S)
    I am interest in you comment.

    There are cases of hyperthymesia found in individual where you can give the person a text book, and after only a single read, they can recite the entire book word for word 5 years down the line
    (i saw this on documentary on youtube, i cannot find, when i find i will post you. the example was a man with a history book in this documentary incase you find it)

    Is this reflect on the person smartness? or simply 'output' of this rare neurological condition?




    Paris hilton is also owning yacht in middle of bahamas
    [/COLOR][/COLOR]
    Principally due to inherited wealth. Your argument is invalid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CaptainDudeson)
    Principally due to inherited wealth. Your argument is invalid.
    I'm sorry, what argument of mine exactly is invalid?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    real intelligence is not marked by your exam results or how hard you study, or what subjects you do... it's the way you think and your potential to do well, not whether you actually put in the effort to study and do well or whether you do the 'hard' subjects or whatever is irrelevant. it's about aptitude basically, which is why they still have aptitude tests for jobs rather than hiring you anyway even if you've got a billizion A*s etc.

    i'm not saying "oh, someone who studies hard and does well is less smart than someone who doesn't study hard and do well " - that isn't necessarily true... I am just saying if you do get an A* over someone with a B that isn't necessarily indicating you are more intelligent than them... too many factors here. like, how your intelligence is examined is obviously a big one.. do exams favour memory or practical ability? which if either is more indicative of 'real' intelligence.

    good topic OP, i'd pos you but i've got none left for today lol.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mullah.S)
    Don't exactly need to be a psychoanalyst to notice it.
    to my opinion this may being alternative speculation to why some people appearing to be 'born smart', maybe is not genetic?
    good points.

    obviously genetics and environment also play a part in theory.

    and i agree, very subjective as to what is 'smart'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've seen plenty of dumb dumbs get good GCSE grades.

    All I'm gonna say is you can't teach common sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Academic exams are just one way to measure one type of intelligence. And a lot of exams you can do well on with just memorising, instead of understanding...And it's the understanding which shows true intelligence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's a bit sad how a few exam results are deemed to represent our whole level of intelligence and determine our future
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mullah.S)
    I'm sorry, what argument of mine exactly is invalid?
    You 'do not do playing' and stop talking rubbish.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Most famous inventors never even went to Uni !
    Such as who?

    Most examples of famous "inventors" who had no higher education were in fact entrepreneurs, not actual inventors.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    My brother bombed at school and isn't academically clever. However, he can mend anything mechanical and construct buildings. He's self-employed and runs his own successful business which allows him to work (hard, granted) three or four days a week and still support his family very comfortably.

    I'm currently studying a PhD but in a lot of situations I lack common sense or the ability to deal with practical problems. Who do I call for advice and help? My brother. I've often wished I was more like him.

    We're both intelligent people, but we have very different expressions of that attribute. Frankly, I think my brother's intelligence is far more useful. It benefits him and his family more than my version of intelligence benefits me. Academic intelligence is fine as long as I'm in the academic world, but in the real world, I haven't found it much help beyond getting me into a job interview. I'm sure my brother would have been quite capable of doing most of the jobs I've had in the course of my life - he's just too intelligent to want some bloke in a grey suit telling him what to do all day!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    KIntelligence is, yeah, in everyday life you see it in people who have great memories, who can kind of think about more than one thing at the same time, who can add up numbers really quick, who can find and properly digest a particular bit of text they're looking for on page really fast, these sorts of things.

    Generally speaking it's hard to really excel academically (by which I mean really excel, stuff like comfortable A*s in A level further maths, comfortable first class honours in top degree programmes, etc) without a high degree of intelligence.

    Of course it's eminently possible to be highly intelligent but nonetheless bomb academically for whatever reason, but excelling if you're stupid - nah.

    I suppose I'm saying that intelligence is a necessary but by no means sufficient condition for academic success.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by upthegunners)
    What do you think?
    Well, that is what IQ tests are designed to predict. And they do a pretty good job in that respect. There are also a number of neurological correlates.

    That said, there are other types of 'smarts' and cunning that don't necessarily get reflected in academic performance.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.