It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Think you're smart? New research shows that smart people are dumber than stupid people. Wait,what?

page: 4
14
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:11 PM
Geeee, I wonder if they informed the LSAT people or the MCAT people? All those math problems, logic puzzles, chemistry, and biology questions, they sould be givin gthe law school and medical scholarships to the people failing those tests?

What a bunch of hooey.

I can't believe some people jump to the conclusion that \$0.10 plus \$1.10 equals \$1.10?
People really got that wrong? I mean the first thing that came to my mind was, "at least I know it isn't a dollar and a dollar-ten." Then, without creating a formula or writing anything down, I just started couting backwards from 10 cents. If the ball is 9, the total is 1.18, if the ball is 7, the total is 1.15, if the ball is 6, if the ball is 5, EUREKA! Took all of 10 seconds.

These researchers need to quit trying to reinvent the wheel.

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:18 PM
Speaking of "Smart" - let us investigate the origins of the word itself.

Etymonline - Smart

smart (v.) O.E. smeortan "be painful," from W.Gmc. *smert- (cf. M.Du. smerten, Du. smarten, O.H.G. smerzan, Ger. schmerzen "to pain," originally "to bite"), from PIE *(s)merd-, from root *(s)mer- "to rub, pound" (cf. Gk. smerdnos "terrible, dreadful," Skt. mardayati "grinds, rubs, crushes," L. mordere to bite").

smart (adj.) late O.E. smeart "sharp, severe, stinging," related to smeortan (see smart (v.)). Meaning "quick, active, clever" is attested from c.1300, probably from the notion of "cutting" wit, words, etc.; meaning "trim in attire" first attested 1718, "ascending from the kitchen to the drawing-room c.1880." [Weekley] In ref. to devices, "behaving as though guided by intelligence" (e.g. smart bomb) first attested 1972. Smarts "good sense, intelligence," is first recorded 1968. Smart cookie is from 1948; smarty-pants first attested 1941.

So actually the original meaning of the terminology referred to "biting, cutting, rubbing, pounding," etc. It wasn't until the last thousand years that it slowly began to mean what we think of the word's meaning today.

What does this mean? It means that we use words all of the time but yet hardly realize what they meant and how it was corrupted over time.

Ever heard people say "I prefer empirical science"?

empiric (adj.) c.1600, from L. empiricus "a physician guided by experience," from Gk. empeirikos "experienced," from empeiria "experience," from empeiros "skilled," from en "in" (see en- (2)) + peira "trial, experiment," from PIE *per- "to try, risk." Originally a school of ancient physicians who based their practice on experience rather than theory. Earlier as a noun (1540s) in reference to the sect, and earliest (1520s) in a sense "quack doctor" which was in frequent use 16c.-19c.

So the word actually meant "Quack Doctor" for the last 400-500 years, and only went back to it's original meaning loosely in the last 50-100 years.

The dictionaries generally stick with the "quack doctor" definition overall in my investigations.

But what does 'empirical' mean to us today? It means the opposite of 'quack doc', and this word has been used to describe both the good and the quack doctors over a vast period of time.

Do you realize the level of complexity that lead to these abrupt reversals? How a word can go between two extremes in such a short time frame, and yet no one even realizes it?

The point of these examples is to reveal that we actually don't know very much about the very words we use when communicating. You could spend weeks looking into etymology alone and wouldn't even scratch the surface. All of the available information and documentation hardly scratches the surface because almost all information is unavailable as it's evidentiary components degraded over time.

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by abeverage
If I have learned anything it is that I know nothing...

It is impossible to know nothing.

If you know that you know nothing, well that is clearly something.

So we are inescapably bound to knowledge no matter how hard we attempt to escape it's grasp. It is a philosophical inevitability that we must know at least one thing.

This is a two way street however, and can be applied in the reverse.
We will always know something, and not know something. This is a facet of the universe itself at play, the great paradox, if you will.
edit on 15-6-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by muzzleflash

I think those are just words. Not really a paradox, just a limitation of language.

Now Meno's arrow, that is a paradox!

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:35 PM
I think this study is stupid, and I will demonstrate why I am smarter than those who made these conclusions.

Math is a skill. The parlor trick questions are doing their best to slip ppl up and see if they are indoctrinated.
In order to do well in society, we must be indoctrinated to some degree. This indoctrination makes us blind to other realities as being good.

Just look at how differently the Chinese do their math. Of course, we would say the west's way of doing math is better. But, what do we know?

The question posed by the OP has nothing to do with brain power, and all to do with skill. Those with the skill will get the question right. Those without the skill will get the question wrong. I got the answer wrong. Does this mean I am stupid? Whatever. I still don't see why the ball being 10 cents is wrong.

Math is a skill. Composition is a skill. Being indoctrinated to certain levels is a skill believe it or not.
Some of these skills blind us from other ways of doing things. OMG! We need a million dollar study to come to this conclusion???

That is dumb.

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:39 PM

Geeee, I wonder if they informed the LSAT people or the MCAT people? All those math problems, logic puzzles, chemistry, and biology questions, they sould be givin gthe law school and medical scholarships to the people failing those tests?

What a bunch of hooey.

I can't believe some people jump to the conclusion that \$0.10 plus \$1.10 equals \$1.10?
People really got that wrong? I mean the first thing that came to my mind was, "at least I know it isn't a dollar and a dollar-ten." Then, without creating a formula or writing anything down, I just started couting backwards from 10 cents. If the ball is 9, the total is 1.18, if the ball is 7, the total is 1.15, if the ball is 6, if the ball is 5, EUREKA! Took all of 10 seconds.

These researchers need to quit trying to reinvent the wheel.

The way I read the question was:
A bat and ball are \$1.10.
The bat by itself costs \$1 more than a ball.
Both together equals \$1.10.
Why then would the ball not cost .10 cents.
Sure. The bat could be 1.05 and the ball .05. That is one possibility.
1 dollar and 10 cents would be another possiblity.

I might being reading the question incorrectly in some way.

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by muzzleflash

Nah I know nothing...

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:47 PM
1st off tests only show that you are good at memorization, or retaining information shown to you.
That's not really a good measurement of someone's intelligence, it's just a oversized complicated game of memory.

to test someone's intelligence would be relative for that matter, also a waste of time, an pissing contest.

instead, ignore the need to compare and be better than, but embrace that we all have interests that enable us to specialize in one or more things a bit better than others, and go with that.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Moneyisgodlifeisrented because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:51 PM
All I have to say is

"that´s what I ´m saying."

and

dum duum duuum.

Really though. I think we are all autistic. Some have a working autism, others a specifically oriented one.

Some consider themselves to have "talents"

I never bought into that whole "everyone has a latent talent they have to exploit" thing. I think we are all capable of the same things with little variation. We just focus on some things more than others.

What one man can do, another can as well. I live by that. If I see something done, I know it can be done again. It really hit home for me one day on the beach as a kid. I walked there alone and was about to go into the water but it was freezing and the waves were wild and huge.

I was alone there except for a single man in the water like 60 meters from me. He was old and was having the time of his life. I looked at myself and said "F-it" and went in. Ever since if I see one man do something, I know /Believe that I can do it as well.

It is all a matter of preparation. Some things are just easier for you based on the circumstances of your life. If you challenge yourself often, the difficulty of a challenge becomes less relevant to weather you can overcome it or not. The first step is definitely believing that you can do it. After that it is just a matter of how much effort you put in.

If you put in allot of effort but don't believe in what you are doing, you will fail. If you believe in what you are doing, you can doo less with more.

Smart people tend to believe. Dumb people already gave up in some way. It is just a matter of time until they give up all together. Smart people are just hard core believers in things. Those things will define their effort and pronounce their "talent".

We are as one.

blah.
edit on 15-6-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:56 PM
The goal of knowledge is to disseminate and share it.

If someone is smarter than anyone else, they must be sharing their knowledge?
Because if they aren't sharing it, they are harming the survival prospects of the human race itself by withholding potentially pertinent information. That would make them pretty stupid in my book.

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:59 PM
So, if somebody tells me I am stoopid then does that mean I am really smarter than they am?

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by Fing3rm4n

Sure. The bat could be 1.05 and the ball .05. That is one possibility.
1 dollar and 10 cents would be another possiblity.

I might being reading the question incorrectly in some way.

Yep. If the ball is .10 and the bat is 1 dollar more than the ball, then the bat would have to be 1.10. If the ball is .10 and the bat is 1.10, then the total is 1.20, not 1.10.

Of course, I've had the benefit of thousands of logic puzzles and tricky math problems, so I am always skeptical at the information first given. I suppose many people don't realize they are always trying to lead you astray with the original question, so you can almost always throw out the most obvious answer.

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 03:14 PM
I failed the question.

I guess I'm stupid.. oh well.

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 03:25 PM
I often laughed at IQ test, having taken several in my youth. .

The only test that is truly useful is the one that makes one remember a series of random numbers flashed for 1 sec, then within 20 secs to write down the exact sequence. But then it only proves one's mental data banking gift, not true intelligence to resolve problems.

Worse, with 'mind-mapping' techniques, one could easily ace such tests.

Those tests are meaningless and proves nothing. symbols and pure semantics. Nothing intelligent in that unless one calls a wordsmith or a robot a genius

Take for example of the ball and bat given by OP.

The truth is that the bat can be either \$1.001cts to \$1.9999cts. The question was ambigious in the first place, and relied on word play of - 'more than'. Things is, why the word play? To confuse, confound and convince when one is wrong and attempting to win over others, rather than use plainspeak and simple meaningful questions or words?

Unfortunately, that's how our world is skewed towards today. To confuse, confound and convince. Politicians, lawyers, bankers and conmen do it all the time - using word play/semantics to succeed, presuming, preening with haughtiness to browbeat the simple minded, to leave them behind inorder to rob them blind.

The true smart - someone capable of resolving issues is - indeed dumb, but only when weighted to the many other accumulated issues of life we have to solve. The smart or the gifted, is only good at one or a limited few aspects of solving issues, and NOT every issue, for he/she is not a genius.

Many mistaken the gifted or a degree holder as genius, capable of solving everything. That is a fallacy, and a most dangerous one if that person or society believes such. He is only gifted in one or a limited few subjects. There is no one who is a genius, know it all on Earth. Just ask Stephen Hawkins what are grits or how to save Syria. I am sure he has no answers to that. He can only answer aspects of science, but even then, not ALL of it.

Thus, to think our leaders are geniuses, when none exists, would be sucidal to societies. Worse in tyranny, when only one man rules believing himself delusionally as dog....oops, spelling error...god on earth.

The 'smart' ones are truly dumber than the rest. We, as a species, are truly dumb if we are to face the challenges of life ALONE, for one may good at one or a few issues, but is totally an idiot over others. Therefore, we humanity must cut the ego and false pride, and work Together as one, complementing each other's diverse talents for the overall good of society, nation and Earth.

.

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 03:28 PM
For a start the source article is about mistakes that start people can make when attempting to quickly solve problems, not why "smart people are dumber than stupid people". The research doesn't suggest that people with a low IQ are more likely to get these questions right than people with a high IQ.

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

I might be stupid but I failed to see how dumber people got the correct answer? (I didn't visit the link sorry and it might have been evidenced there)

This reminded me of the riddle...

If it costs a buck and a half for a fish and a half, how much does five fish cost?

While most think 1.5, 3, 4.5, duh the easy math is a buck and a half for a fish and a half is the same as a buck a fish.

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 04:00 PM

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by FortAnthem

Great article.

This is a definition of a pseudoskeptic. Most hardline skeptics have huge blind spots because they think they already know. I think most people in my area of study, Theoretical Physics, tend to be more open minded because all we do is think outside the box.

It always amazes me when you debate people who think they know everything

That seems to be an excellent summation of it.

It has occured to me at times that those who are unfamiliar with physics (perhaps even abhor it due to not understanding) are often the most adamant in their pseudoskepticism. They wish to think of themselves as intelligent but don't wish to put the effort into actually being intelligent, hence, things of this nature are discussed in other academic areas to try to comprehend instead of just gaining an understanding of what it is that intimidates them.

I have come across people that try to speak about Australian history even though they obviously have no idea. The same person then refused to accept they were wrong about the meaning of a Dr Suess story even when they were proven wrong by the words of the author. Many people that think they are clever often make the mistake of speaking about things they know little about. Many people that think they are clever are stubborn and will not admit when they are wrong. Some people learn a little physics and then they convince themselves that they are Albert Einstein I guess.

Many that think they are clever just put too much "effort into actually being intelligent" dont you think?

People that think they are clever are also often the most predictable and easily manipulated. Chicks that think they are clever are often the most predictable for example.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 04:05 PM
reply to post by Germanicus

Did the OP make the distinction between "smart people" and "people who think they are smart?"

I would agree that the majority of people I meet who think they are smart are actually extremely misinformed or just full of lots of incorrect assumptions.

The way I read the OP though, they were talking about pepole who actually are smart, and in that case the research in the OP is just silly.

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 04:10 PM

reply to post by Germanicus

Did the OP make the distinction between "smart people" and "people who think they are smart?"

I would agree that the majority of people I meet who think they are smart are actually extremely misinformed or just full of lots of incorrect assumptions.

The way I read the OP though, they were talking about pepole who actually are smart, and in that case the research in the OP is just silly.

I think intelligence is realitive. I also think that there are different kinds of intelligence. Someone that is truly intelligent knows that he is no smarter or better than the next guy.

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 04:19 PM
reply to post by Germanicus

I think there is a difference between Smart and Educated, but to me "smart" means critical thinking skills. Who is the most likely to absorb new information, who is the most likely to find the solution to a problem, etc.

I would think "smart" would be a measure of one's capacity for knowledge and learning curve to master that knowledge while everything else is just skills or education.

In other words, someone might be way smarter in History, but it took them years to learn that knowledge while a smarter person might be able to come in at a later time and readily catch up and surpass them.

top topics

14