wise vs smart

[Shadowbound]

I sincerely doubt that, as I never said they were mutually exclusive. Wisdom is acquired by experience, intelligence is genetic.

 

[Narz]

That's not intelligence, that's the ability to conform.

Likability is hardly just the ability to conform. A statement like that shows your profound lack of understanding in the matter. Sounds like your thinking about relationships is stuck in junior-high.

Incorrect.

Nothing I said that you quoted was incorrect.

Tall people have more job success than short people, in addition to physical attractiveness.

That only applies to men. Shorter women are more attractive than taller women.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2667
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691114/

One inch yields $789 a year. Tall people are more confident, are more admired and seen as better leaders. It is precisely an excellent parallel - being tall means that you are more likely to be a successful leader in society.

Do you know what the word virtue means? You carry on trying to justify what you said but I think you forgot the words you used.

May as well say being white was a virtue in the early 1800's because whites were paid more than blacks.

That is completely contradictory to the empirical data. Intelligent people actually underestimate their abilities and might judge other people incorrectly as having the ability to be as competent as them.

You're absolutely wrong. I know the effect you are referring to & it's in regard to skill level not intelligence. Incorrectly & superficially analyzing data & coming to erroneous conclusions seems to be a strong suit of yours.

Next time before trying to come off smart you should at the very least read the Wikipidia entry on the idea you are trying to appear competent about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

"The effect is not specifically limited to the observation that ignorance of a topic is conducive to overconfident assertions about it, and Dunning and Kruger cite a study saying that 94% of college professors rank their work as "above average" (relative to their peers), to underscore that the highly intelligent and informed are hardly exempt.[3] Rather, the effect is about paradoxical defects in perception of skill, in oneself and others, regardless of the particular skill and its intellectual demands, whether it is chess, playing golf[4] or driving a car.[3]"

I suspect your festive pic covers a deep pain.

Charisma can be quantified rather easily through an election.

There are a lot of other factors besides charisma at play in an election. Again, I think you're stuck emotionally in junior high.

 

[Earthling]

Shadowbound I don't think he was referring to what you said, just a general answer to the thread/OP, you get those all the time especially with short responses.

edit - I feel I should elaborate on why I objected to Kyriakos' random/self-generated definitions in particular earlier - it was the assertion that "wisdom is/automatically comes with age." This is one of the very worst misconceptions or pitfalls for such a discussion around, surprised it actually took so long for someone to post it but figured someone would. It obviously and immediately fails to account for things others have correctly pointed out like how two completely contrary political views/groups will banter around the word "wisdom" and is just a worthless platitude.

 

[Shadowbound]

It appears I'm the one covered in egg.

 

[Zelig]

It's difficult to prove using science, but I think rationally, I could demonstrate by definition that it exists, using logic.

Intelligence and wisdom both fall under an umbrella category, not sure what to call it, but they are related in that they both involve knowledge. So let's call it knowledge for the sake of expedience, even if it isn't precise language.

Intelligence involves knowledge of facts, and problem-solving skills. A computer, for example, possesses both. It can store facts, and it can perform certain basic functions like addition. But even with information and basic functionality, a computer has no way of making use of this information, no idea what the information does, what its purpose is, or why it should use it. It's all greek, to the computer. And even though it can perform simple functions, it doesn't know when to perform those functions. It has much of the power of the mind, but not all of it. It is missing key components of what we would call intelligence, but it is not missing all components.

Wisdom, on the other hand, is another loose term for a different kind of intelligence, pertaining to understanding what kind of information one possesses, how it relates to other pieces of data, how to use that data, understanding why to use that data, and allows you to make decisions based on experience and intuition. It can be as basic as the reflex to remove one's hand from a burning stove, as instinctive as fleeing from a predator, or as deep and philosophical as to ponder the ethical considerations of capital punishment. Wisdom is also possible in a situation where you lack crucial bits of intelligence; for example, there is no rule book or natural enforcer of morality or prudence. Yet, experience shows us that certain actions have consequences, and that those consequences can be negative, and that it is not in our best interests to pursue certain courses of action. Even if you have never ingested a poison, you might have seen or heard about accidental deaths in others, and learned that ingesting certain substances can be harmful. That's data, but in a computer it would just sit there doing nothing. The computer wouldn't understand what it means. Wisdom means understanding the point of that information, and being able to use it; you learn to avoid ingesting substances which could be toxic.

Arguably, it's all data; the facts, and the information pertaining to when and why to use those facts. But, there is something unique about knowledge pertaining to when and why, in that, the only way you can know these things is by experience or thought experiments, and that requires a different kind of intelligence than simple possession of knowledge and memory recall, I would argue.

Logically, there is a difference in those two distinct types of intelligence. I'd argue that there is a third kind, memory; possession of an efficient and accurate memory storage and recall system is a piece of intelligence, but it is only one part which by itself is meaningless. A computer possesses EXCELLENT memory, and can recall data with startling speed and accuracy. It can perform certain basic functions with incredible speed. However, a computer presently still needs a human being to program what to do with those functions, and it still won't understand what they do. A computer only covers 1-2 parts of what a human brain does, and has no innate ability to do the third.

One might consider wisdom to be a key component of sentience, but perhaps that is an oversimplification.

Is this helping, or making the concepts more confusing?

This is not in line with generally accepted theories about artificial intelligence.

 

[Clement]

It's difficult to prove using science, but I think rationally, I could demonstrate by definition that it exists, using logic.

Intelligence and wisdom both fall under an umbrella category, not sure what to call it, but they are related in that they both involve knowledge. So let's call it knowledge for the sake of expedience, even if it isn't precise language.

Intelligence involves knowledge of facts, and problem-solving skills. A computer, for example, possesses both. It can store facts, and it can perform certain basic functions like addition. But even with information and basic functionality, a computer has no way of making use of this information, no idea what the information does, what its purpose is, or why it should use it. It's all greek, to the computer. And even though it can perform simple functions, it doesn't know when to perform those functions. It has much of the power of the mind, but not all of it. It is missing key components of what we would call intelligence, but it is not missing all components.

Wisdom, on the other hand, is another loose term for a different kind of intelligence, pertaining to understanding what kind of information one possesses, how it relates to other pieces of data, how to use that data, understanding why to use that data, and allows you to make decisions based on experience and intuition. It can be as basic as the reflex to remove one's hand from a burning stove, as instinctive as fleeing from a predator, or as deep and philosophical as to ponder the ethical considerations of capital punishment. Wisdom is also possible in a situation where you lack crucial bits of intelligence; for example, there is no rule book or natural enforcer of morality or prudence. Yet, experience shows us that certain actions have consequences, and that those consequences can be negative, and that it is not in our best interests to pursue certain courses of action. Even if you have never ingested a poison, you might have seen or heard about accidental deaths in others, and learned that ingesting certain substances can be harmful. That's data, but in a computer it would just sit there doing nothing. The computer wouldn't understand what it means. Wisdom means understanding the point of that information, and being able to use it; you learn to avoid ingesting substances which could be toxic.

Arguably, it's all data; the facts, and the information pertaining to when and why to use those facts. But, there is something unique about knowledge pertaining to when and why, in that, the only way you can know these things is by experience or thought experiments, and that requires a different kind of intelligence than simple possession of knowledge and memory recall, I would argue.

Logically, there is a difference in those two distinct types of intelligence. I'd argue that there is a third kind, memory; possession of an efficient and accurate memory storage and recall system is a piece of intelligence, but it is only one part which by itself is meaningless. A computer possesses EXCELLENT memory, and can recall data with startling speed and accuracy. It can perform certain basic functions with incredible speed. However, a computer presently still needs a human being to program what to do with those functions, and it still won't understand what they do. A computer only covers 1-2 parts of what a human brain does, and has no innate ability to do the third.

One might consider wisdom to be a key component of sentience, but perhaps that is an oversimplification.

Is this helping, or making the concepts more confusing?

Not confusing at all, good post, thank you for the insight.

 

[Kal'thzar]

How about injecting some definitions drawn from wikipedia, in a wild attempt to be impartial;

Intelligence: Intelligence is a term describing one or more capacities of the mind. In different contexts this can be defined in different ways, including the capacities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, planning, emotional intelligence and problem solving.

Widom: It is the ability to optimally (effectively and efficiently) apply perceptions and knowledge and so produce the desired results. Wisdom is also the comprehension of what is true or right coupled with optimum judgment as to action.

Discussion, the non-impartial bit:
Overlap between the two exists. The required subject is intelligence, it comes first, because the knowledge about the subject needs to be aquired before you can be wise or unwise.

Example:
You find a red round thing (a tomato), you don't know what it tastes like but you wonder if it would go well in a fruit salad. You have to find out what the tomato tastes like first; gaining knowledge about it. Then you can decide if it should go in or not (an experiment I encourage you to try....). If you simply find that a tomato is a fruit and thus it should go in, you have not understood what a 'fruit' or a 'fruit salad' is.

However, people that are seen as 'intelligent' and awesome at say, Physics, might never have cooked a steak before, and thus does not have the appropriate knowledge base (intelligence) to determine the optimum time to cook a rare steak etc (widom). The wise physicist would know this and attempt to educate themselves.

Now comes the next questions; who is more likely to educate themselves when confronted by a new subject?

Thoughts?

EDIT: it should be noted that there is a possibility of being wise using other peoples knowledge, whether that is a good enought situation (it certainly is not optimal) is up to the individual I suppose.

 

[Souron]

First off, with a question like this it's important to define wisdom and smarts. I define wisdom as the knowledge of how to live life. I define smarts and inteligence as the mental capability to understand and reason about complex ideas.

With this definition, I would not necessarily call religious founders wise. They had popular ideas, but those ideas were also contested. I would hesitate to call that knowledge. Philosophy perhaps, but not wisdom. That is not to say those people had no wisdom, but that isn't their contribution. Wisdom does not bring fame.

Inteligence on the other hand is important to making strides in science, and is helpful in a wide array of pursiuts. It can be used to advance the sum of human knowlege or make money.

Which is better to have? Wisdom brings contentment. Inteligence brings wealth and other ambitions. A beggar would rather be smart enough to make some money, then to find contentment in being a good beggar. But a wealthier person would be better off being wise, than having slightly more. This all assumes that some version of hedonism is true. If the principal value is aiding society, not the individual, intelligence wins out. It has a bigger impact on societal progress.

 

[Kyriakos]

Contrary to Earthling's one-liner, i think there is a consensus on how to define intelligence and wisdom, as most people in the thread used the same terms and meanings to achieve that.

Not sure which way this thread is headed though...

 

[aneeshm]

You cannot be wise without being intelligent.

 

[Boundless]

You cannot be wise without being intelligent.

Completely disagree. You can be street-wise, or socially wise without being smart. Depends on how you define intelligence I suppose...

 

[Bill3000]

Completely disagree. You can be street-wise, or socially wise without being smart. Depends on how you define intelligence I suppose...

Right, and as said before, using the term in that sense is just an excuse for stupid people to think they have worth. I mean, street wisdom? You're confusing what people consider "common sense" (which is a rather trivial thing, which anyone can obtain easily) with wisdom there. You're completely devaluing any sense of the word "wisdom."

 

[tycoonist]

Wisdom you can gain through time and experience. But if you're thick as ****, nothing's gonna change that.

 

[Hygro]

Almost all examples of wisdom I can think of come from logic guided by the experience to know which logic to pay attention to--i.e. to identify truer, more humanly relevant starting premises

 

[Boundless]

Right, and as said before, using the term in that sense is just an excuse for stupid people to think they have worth. I mean, street wisdom? You're confusing what people consider "common sense" (which is a rather trivial thing, which anyone can obtain easily) with wisdom there. You're completely devaluing any sense of the word "wisdom."

What value do you place on the word wisdom? This is problematic because you can look at it in terms of Plato, who saw wisdom in Republic as knowledge of the city as a whole. So you COULD argue that street-wise is just a very modern twist on that philosophy. Knowledge of the city doesn't necessarily require any 'smartness'. How would you define 'smart' then? Because I see a lot of emphasis on the way wisdom is incorrectly defined, but not on how smart is.
Smart doesn't necessarily mean intelligence... Smart means quick and sharp.

 

[aneeshm]

Completely disagree. You can be street-wise, or socially wise without being smart. Depends on how you define intelligence I suppose...

'Street-wisdom' is a form of contextual knowledge, not wisdom.

This discussion is difficult to continue meaningfully for any amount of time, as intelligence can be precisely defined quite easily (Spearman's g), but very few of us (if any) have a common (or even workable) definition of wisdom.

 

[Mise]

It's much easier to demonstrate smarts than wisdom anyway. Any can say they're "wise", and depending on how stupid the other guy is, it's not hard to make other people believe that. Even if you concede that smarts and wisdom are uncorrelated (or even negatively correlated), a smart person can easily see how to make other people think he is wise. A wise person doesn't necessarily have that ability, especially if the person you're trying to convince is too dumb to know a wise man when he sees one.

 

[Brighteye]

Some especially delusional & emotionally crippled types lose all perspective entirely, thinking their own intelligence allows them to see the world with utter objectivity.

Yes, that's me. Some especially deluded and mentally crippled types adhere to the fool's doctrine of postmodernism, that claims that no-one can be objective, and even that there is no reality. Typically these claims are applied in argument towards a conclusion, when actually to deploy these claims negates any possibility of argument or conclusion.


I would call intelligence 'processing power', and wisdom the goals and decisions that direct it. Obviously the latter can be achieved by the former, if a person chooses.

The choice to question your goals and ends, rather than simply calculate the best means, is wisdom.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

'Street-wisdom' is a form of contextual knowledge, not wisdom.

I'd say wisdom depends on context.

Met a guy last night who somehow managed to get a high school diploma from a school in Alaska. He's never lived in Alaska and isn't quite sure how he got it. He's never read a book in his life, and yet from talking to him about life, in general, he seemed to have more of a head on his shoulder than some the academic "intellectuals" who hide in the safe walls of universities.

 

[Bill3000]

I'd say wisdom depends on context.

Met a guy last night who somehow managed to get a high school diploma from a school in Alaska. He's never lived in Alaska and isn't quite sure how he got it. He's never read a book in his life, and yet from talking to him about life, in general, he seemed to have more of a head on his shoulder than some the academic "intellectuals" who hide in the safe walls of universities.

What the hell does "having a head on your shoulder" has anything to do with wisdom? Again, another example of those that are stupid hiding behind the cover of wisdom to pretend that they have worth. I mean what, do you mean the social skills which academic-types tend to lack and become famous for if they have it? Because that ain't wisdom, and is pretty trivial for most of the population.