h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Don't just read get involved, Hi I'm LJ one of the most creative people you will even read, so what is this art of smart thing well has I have a love and passion for learning how to learn, then I what to put a couple of things straght about slower learners, One being Intelligence is not fixed, to evey body has a built in genius, its your brain, and if you know how to use it, it will do some magic things for you, do you feel that you can't do some thing, then keep your eyes open, and you will be amazed, with what can happen with a bit of creative thinking, ok now time for the question, what your definition-meaning-desription-explanation-exposition-interpretation of being smart.

two types: fluid intelligence/static intelligence.

fluid intelligence is wit and sharpness: the ability to think quickly with a retort or reply

static intelligence is actual logic. a brilliant doctor may know everythng, but still be slow witted, for instance.

Intelligence has to do with being able to analyze situations.

Smart is about applying what you know.

There are a lot of intelligent poeople out there who aren't very smart.

and, of course, vice versa.

I must be dumb - I'm still reading the original post and trying to make sense out of all the typos.

However, it would seem that intelligent means not knowing what the preview button is for, and smart means insulting people for a simple mistake .

Maybe my typos are there for a reason, maybe theres a massage that you can't see yet, or maybe just maybe It just does not matter about such things, you see, if you allow such things to go by with out picking out such little bits of bad grammer, then maybe you could, just allow people to write in anyway thay choose, and as words and lauguage are made up anyway, who's to say that I have spelt my words wrong, just because somebody eles say so don't mean it write oops right.

Reckon you're right. I can't see the message - so either I'm too stupid to understand - my original contention - or you're failing to communicate clearly.

Or possibly this is some kind of test and I just failed. I can only refer you to the last line of posting 3.

Sorry, that is not an excuse for the abuse of the English language. You are meant to make yourself clear when talking to others...just out of politeness!!!

On topic though...intelligence would be about applying knowledge to a situation. Intellect would be a fit description for a wide range of knowledge, and careful thinking. Smart would be wit and humour and just basic slang I guess...

*ponders*

Yes. Think that is my definition.

IS THAT SO.

I'll join the majority of the thread in saying that intellect is ability to use learning - quick-wittedness, creativity, imagination, and other applications. Smart is just, as we'd say in the south, "buk-larnin'."

And as far as mutilating the grammar of the English language goes - please use more than one period in your posts. That'll help a lot with those run on sentances, and make things a bit easier for everyone else to understand.

Intellect is different from intelligence, in that I *think* it is unique to humans. Intelligence however, is found in all animals - we know this from research into migration patterns (birds flying to other countries without needing to be told how) and the way monkeys look for a wide variety in diet, and just basics into survival. A monkey for example, will hunt for ages to find a certain type of food, and remember where it is. Therefore, they have learnt something, and have remembered it, and then have applied that knowledge to getting more of the same result by repeating the pattern...

Intellect however (I believe anyway), is linked to the specifics of human thinking...reason, analogy and al that trash.

*leaves the door open for someone with vast more knowledge to come in and tell her she is wrong*

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. (I think).

I think some of the confusion here lies in how we each use the words intellect, intelligence, and smart(s), especially since by dictionary definition, they all mean essentially the same thing or at least *refer* to the same thing (in the case of intellect and intelligence).

You did, however, bring up an interesting point - the difference between intelligence in humans and in "lower" animals. While everyone seems to agree that there is a difference, I've yet to have it explained to me just what the line is separating the two. And that's mostly because I know of animals who seem pretty darn creative in the way they try to avoid things (horses that make the cirlces they go in an arena smaller because they think it might be the number of times they go round in a circle, so that they're done faster, that sort of thing), and that requires the ability to both learn and apply what you've learned in several situations. Not to say that's at the level of analogy and symbolism in human intelligence, but it's sort of the same idea at a crude level.

*thus the topic drift commences*

The last time anybody tried to define intelligence here on hootoo it nearly caused world war 3.

O yes... forgot about that...

Of course, that involved some rather volitile people...

I've just fallen back onto my psychology knowledge. I'm not bothered about a fixed definition. Although I think what I posted earlier was a good definition in my book.

The only difference (as much as some people like to deny) is that we have, for some random reason, a slightly higher evolved brain. It's not that much...although we have this weird out of size brain to the rest of the animals. Something like 6 times the average proportion. Our brain uses up so much body energy. I think the difference between us and other animals (who are by no means *lower*) is the ability of reason. Although I am not entirely sure. We need a psychologist for that one. There is a clear definition, but aside from that, we are just another animal. A complete parasite, and we survive just like all other survive. Which is why the idea of *compassion* is sometimes alien, but more often not, being that we have the knowledge of balance to keep our species and level of comfort alive. Which is why the mass majority of people HATE the idea of war...

Ooh. This is fun!

And compassion is where the whole religious aspect normally comes in - my favorite part, and I'm more interested in learning what research and so forth says than telling others my view (because, let's face it, intuition isn't the easiest thing in the world to back up).

To take two other tangents: Which is why the idea of *compassion* is sometimes alien, but more often not, being that we have the knowledge of balance to keep our species and level of comfort alive. Which is why the mass majority of people HATE the idea of war...

1 - The slight contradiction of compassion and balance. For true balance, both good and bad must have an equilibrium - not static without an exchange, but a true chemical equilibrium where there is a constant flow between the two sides. I think a lot of people forget that when they talk about war - to be evil and Machievellian, sometimes the ends do justify the means. Sometimes the deaths of several hundred people cannot be avoided. Sometimes it does more good for them to be dead - one of the reasons we have such a *huge* surplus of population is (among other reasons) because we haven't had a large scale war in a very long time. It is sort of a balancer for the population - much like lack of food and natural predators are in the natural world.

Don't get me wrong. I'm *extremely* anti-war, particularly since I'm a resident of America (unfortunately). But more because I don't see this particular "war" doing any true long term good. But I'll shut up about that before I get myself into trouble.

and 2 - Why, if, as you say, so many people hate the idea of war, are so many people apparently ready to go to war? That's another oddity of human nature I just don't understand, and it saddens me greatly.

In terms of things like this, I think of the underlying instinct of being an animal that we all have.

Why are so many people ready to go to war? Numerous reasons.

1) Most people are easily led (and religion proves this) and place their trust in a God : whether alive, or spiritual. If that God says go-to-war, then the people go to war.

2) It's a natural instinct that when threatened, the Fight-or-Flight response. Owing to evolution (which is obviously still a theory) the majority of people are fighters, which is why they have been able to reproduce. So they like to respond with the aggressive attack. However, owing to the whole idea of letting the weak survive; modern day society also has an equal amount of people that don't respond so quickly and think things through and geentically dislike fighting.



The whole idea of comapssion and religion going together is a farce. Compassion is taught but not followed through. There is nothing more bloody than the history of organised religion. It is, in fact quite condescending...*we forgive you because you aren't as good as us*

Balance - the whole idea of nature is balance. For example, the hedgehog problem in Scotland would even itself out naturally. The majority of hedgehogs would die of starvation before the seagulls die out...then that population will recover in their absence, giving lots of food for the hedgehogs to recover.
Humans, with the ability of reason, know how this works and can modify their behaviour to fit.

Too much in one posting. Have I answered the post? I'm never very good at staying on topic...

*hones in on one little thing*

People go to war because of their animal instincts and their need to be led by something larger and more important than themselves. (unless I misread you).

Shouldn't this be where intellect comes in so we can *think* for ourselves? Or these oversized electical thingamajigs in our heads are for naught...

Post-thought: or am I just being difficultly idealistic now?

Well, not everyone is an intellect, are they? There are such things as stupid people (as opposed to ignorant people) as much as people deny it. I mean, if there are intellectuals...there has to be something at the other end of the scale. And they are usually the big breeders too...

Amy - Nah. I think I may be overthinking and getting stuff wrong. Any moment now, someone will come along and tell me I am talking crap. It's a valid view...I mean, being positive about the human race. But essentially, we are just a tiny fraction above the rest of the creatures that inhabit this earth. And we still can't conquer nature...so we aren't that superior. There are like several stages that mankind has gone through that disintegrates the notion that we are superior...can't remember all of them. But the first ones were the knowledge that the world was round, and the universe didn't revolve around us. The next one's were Darwin's theory of evolution. It kinda exposes just how deep Christian influence is in our society. The final one will be if it is proven that there is ET life...prove that we aren't the only existance in the Universe...

*ponders*

Then again, could be overthinking stuff..!!!