[BlackFlames]

I think that there is. Well I think their the same but at the same time their different. Looking at this question on Yahoo Answers this guy in my opinion gave out a pretty good explanation. He says:

"Smart can be applied to learned inferences, such as making smart business or emotional decisions. Smart is an earned status. When we study and learn, we become smarter in the subject matter. Book smart or street smart, we have to put effort into becoming smarter.

Intelligence, on the other hand, is something with which you are born. Your IQ is a measurement of your intelligence, and doesn’t change because it is a measure of your ability to learn. This can apply to terms we chronically associate with intelligence, like math, or it can apply to your ability to learn negotiation of emotional issues. In either case, it is inherent, and it simply stems from your genetic makeup."

What do you think?

[Xyz]

	Originally Posted by BlackFlames To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Intelligence, on the other hand, is something with which you are born.

Actually, IQ isn't a purely genetic trait, environment counts.
And I read an article a few days ago (via reddit I think) that talked about IQ tests measuring determination as much as they measure intelligence. Or something.. I'll go look for the article.

I think the only difference is that "smart" is a subjective term, and "intelligent" is less subjective (due to IQ tests etc). So you can make of it what you wish.

Maybe you're talking about the difference between street smart and book-smart too?

[BlackFlames]

Originally Posted by Xyz To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, IQ isn't a purely genetic trait, environment counts. And I read an article a few days ago (via reddit I think) that talked about IQ tests measuring determination as much as they measure intelligence. Or something.. I'll go look for the article. I think the only difference is that "smart" is a subjective term, and "intelligent" is less subjective (due to IQ tests etc). So you can make of it what you wish. Maybe you're talking about the difference between street smart and book-smart too?

I would like to read it. Yeah I'm talking about all aspects of it.

[Xyz]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- found it, got a bit distracted with the other articles in /r/psychology first though
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Jalex]

I think it is not a matter of thinking. I mean people have spent years of their life discussing this, so why reinventing the wheel?

This guy's answer is very limited. IQ tests have been proven to be affected by experience, culture, even gender, that's why IQ tests are not even taken seriously nowadays.

What's your definition of intelligence?

So first describe what is being intelligent and what is being smart (there are quite a bunch of definitions out there) and then you'll get to an answer for yourself. ("truth" is not a matter of democracy).

[BlackFlames]

	Originally Posted by Xyz To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. - found it, got a bit distracted with the other articles in /r/psychology first though To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hm so tell me, If I'm less determined I'm more likely to have a low IQ score? Or lack motivation I'll have a low IQ score? It makes sense but I think you can lack motivation and still have a high IQ.

I wanna take a IQ test
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


@Jalex: *Bows*

[TheStranger]

Yes, environment counts, imagine if you lived in a house made entirely out of lead, also when language barriers are removed IQ can drastically increase, such as in the case of testing immigrants.

[sentientbeing]

Smart is applied Intelligence. Intelligence can be a waste if not utilized.

[80r]

Yes, I always say there's a difference, but I look at it more as knowledge vs intelligence. Perceived as such, there is quite obviously a difference.

[Still Standing]

Yes, knowledge and intelligence are two different things, and I hate it when someone tries to pass off a knowledge test as an IQ test (by the way, studying a subject matter makes you more knowledgeable in that subject, not smarter).

And intelligence has various synonyms, including smarts, acumen, brainpower, brilliance, perspicacity, quickness, wit. I don't see the need to make a distinction between any of these terms. I think it mostly depends on the context in which intelligence is discussed or presented.

[Sam the INTJ]

Yes, I know many intelligent individuals but because of the choices they choose in life and the way the conduct themselfs I'd say they were'nt smart. Kind of like clever dum guys.

[Muse]

Heres the way i understand it...

Theres intellect, which is the ability to apply and work with information.

And then theres memory, which is the ability to retain information.

When the two are used together it becomes knowledge; creating, involving, using.

With this understanding, its easy to see the differences between things like book smarts, street smarts, and uninformed intellectuals. A lot of parents think their kids are prodigies because they can remember a bunch of things, through repetition, in their studies. It only means they have a good memory, intellect is the tool we use to act on our environment.

Intellect is the engine, memory is the fuel, and knowledge is the end result.

[Xyz]

	Originally Posted by BlackFlames To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hm so tell me, If I'm less determined I'm more likely to have a low IQ score? Or lack motivation I'll have a low IQ score? It makes sense but I think you can lack motivation and still have a high IQ. I wanna take a IQ test To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. @Jalex: *Bows*

No, because level of determination isn't the only thing being tested. But somebody's IQ score will be slightly higher if they're determined, and slightly lower if not very determined.
That's what I understood it to be anyway. I'm far from a psychologist unfortunately.

[Shryke]

Intelligence is the capacity to understand and learn, being smart is the ability to make the best use out of gained knowledge.

[QuietPlease]

	Originally Posted by Shryke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Intelligence is the capacity to understand and learn, being smart is the ability to make the best use out of gained knowledge.

This is exactly what I was going to say.

[Haumea]

I saw that article - it's really nothing new. Obviously if someone isn't trying to do his best on a test, he will do worse than someone who is. The headline is hyped a bit.

This "smart" vs. "intelligent" distinction goes into some idiosyncratic terminology. The two are synonymous.

There's, as has been said, knowledge/expertise vs. "pure" intelligence, and in psychometrics there's a "crystallized intelligence" vs. "fluid intelligence" model.

Motivation can obviously make all the difference as far as real-world outcomes (by that I mean financial/career success, not say, groundbreaking works of staggering genius), especially past a certain IQ threshold (probably >125 FSIQ, judging by the work of many researchers.)

I think the less your fluid intelligence is, the more important it becomes to maximize and focus your special talents and proclivities.

[Zsych]

I think smart is being able to deal with real life problems quickly and effectively. Intelligence is being able to find solutions to life's problems, including those that don't derive from immediate interactions.

[Galaxy M31]

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I saw that article - it's really nothing new. Obviously if someone isn't trying to do his best on a test, he will do worse than someone who is. The headline is hyped a bit. This "smart" vs. "intelligent" distinction goes into some idiosyncratic terminology. The two are synonymous.

They're sometimes used as synonyms colloquially, but my dictionary (Merriam-Webster) thinks they're not one and the same.

'Smart' - knowledgeable, shrewd, witty, clever, saucy, intelligent
'Intelligent' - the ability to learn, understand, and deal with new or trying situations, reason, mental acuteness, the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly, comprehension

Based on those definitions,

Originally Posted by BlackFlames To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Smart can be applied to learned inferences, such as making smart business or emotional decisions. Smart is an earned status. When we study and learn, we become smarter in the subject matter. Book smart or street smart, we have to put effort into becoming smarter. Intelligence, on the other hand, is something with which you are born. Your IQ is a measurement of your intelligence, and doesn’t change because it is a measure of your ability to learn. This can apply to terms we chronically associate with intelligence, like math, or it can apply to your ability to learn negotiation of emotional issues. In either case, it is inherent, and it simply stems from your genetic makeup."

this is mostly right. But intelligence can help smart along. I like to think of it as intelligence being the y-intercept of the graph and smarts being the slope: y = mx + b.


... I wonder though, can intelligence be changed? As we constantly evolve, does our ability to learn and reason change? Part of the definition of intelligence was the ability to deal with trying situations, (which I would argue might belong in the definition of smart) which changes with time as we gain experience. I think I've gotten much better at abstract reasoning and understanding through learning theoretical math, but maybe I just unlocked what was already there. Ah, the old nature vs. nurture debate...

k I'll stop before idea-rhea takes over.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Haumea]

	'Smart' - knowledgeable, shrewd, witty, clever, saucy, intelligent

OK, I thought they were synonymous. Silly me.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Seriously, though, there's still no difference. "Shrewd" and "clever" can certainly mean "able to apply knowledge to manipulate situations."

	I think I've gotten much better at abstract reasoning and understanding through learning theoretical math, but maybe I just unlocked what was already there.

In my experience there isn't appreciable change as far as measurable fluid intelligence. I think you can sorta nibble around the edges a bit, but there's a very real genetic ceiling.

[rbc]

Originally Posted by BlackFlames To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Smart can be applied to learned inferences, such as making smart business or emotional decisions. Smart is an earned status. When we study and learn, we become smarter in the subject matter. Book smart or street smart, we have to put effort into becoming smarter. Intelligence, on the other hand, is something with which you are born. Your IQ is a measurement of your intelligence, and doesn’t change because it is a measure of your ability to learn. This can apply to terms we chronically associate with intelligence, like math, or it can apply to your ability to learn negotiation of emotional issues. In either case, it is inherent, and it simply stems from your genetic makeup."

I happen to think there is a valid distinction to be made here, but that "smart" and "intelligent" are still synonyms: I would give both of them the second definition. The first type sounds like skill (the key phrase is "subject matter"), which is what happens when intelligence is applied over time to gain specific knowledge and practice interpretation of specific kinds of situations. In the IQ testing literature, the first kind is sometimes called "crystallized intelligence", while the latter is called "fluid intelligence" -- the fluid is what you are born with, and what you invest over time into creating specific areas of expertise for yourself.

	Originally Posted by Xyz To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually, IQ isn't a purely genetic trait, environment counts.

Yes, but it doesn't count for much. About 80% of the variance in adult IQ is genetic; the other 20% is unshared environmental (meaning the part of the environment that siblings don't have in common) -- shared environment (the part of the environment that siblings do have in common) explains NONE of the adult variation in IQ. Strange, but true. The reason seems to be that humans naturally tend to seek out environments which enhance their strengths and avoid their weaknesses.

	I think the only difference is that "smart" is a subjective term, and "intelligent" is less subjective (due to IQ tests etc). So you can make of it what you wish.

This is another important distinction, but I would again say that smart and intelligent are synonyms, and that both match the second definition. When teachers are asked to rate the intelligence of their students, they tend to rank slightly smart but very compliant children as smarter than very smart but uncompliant children. This is an error in how they are measuring smartness/intelligence; the tests do much better at distinguishing the real smarts from just "pleasure to have in class".

	Originally Posted by Xyz To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

OK, this is nothing new. "high IQ score required both high intelligence and high motivation but a low IQ score could be the result of a lack of either factor" is exactly what we have always known about the tests.

	Originally Posted by Jalex To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This guy's answer is very limited. IQ tests have been proven to be affected by experience, culture, even gender, that's why IQ tests are not even taken seriously nowadays.

Not taken seriously by whom? I assure you they are
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. The best IQ tests are the least culture loaded, and those tend to show the greatest differences between ethnic groups! Consider just one minor example, the two digit span subtests of the Wechsler tests (WAIS, WISC and WPPSI) -- alone, this subtest is not that good an IQ test, but it does illustrate my point. In digit span, the psychologist giving the test reads a list of numbers to the subject; the subject listens, remembers, and repeats the list. The lists get longer and longer, and therefore harder and harder to remember; the test stops when the subject gets too many wrong in a row, and the score is determined by the longest list length on which they consistently got correct answers. There are two versions, forward and backward: if the examiner says "3, 7, 1, 4", the answer in forward is "3, 7, 1, 4" but the answer in backward is "4, 1, 7, 3". Backward is considerably harder than forward; most people can manage a number list two digits longer in forward than in backward. In the US, the infamous gap between blacks and whites is twice as large on backward digit span as in forward! I'm not saying there can't be an environmental explanation for this, but I am saying there is no known environmental explanation for this: all the ones traditionally offered are too simple to explain the pattern of observed data.

	Originally Posted by BlackFlames To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hm so tell me, If I'm less determined I'm more likely to have a low IQ score? Or lack motivation I'll have a low IQ score? It makes sense but I think you can lack motivation and still have a high IQ.

You have to make a distinction between the number the shown by a particular test on a particular day, and the number that would have been given by an imaginary perfect test on an imaginary perfectly typical day. If you lack motivation to bother answering the questions on the test, the test will be unable to tell how smart you really are. It is exactly the same thing as slouching when someone measures your height. To be measured as tall, you must both actually be tall and be standing up straight. If you're seated, your actual maximum height capacity doesn't change, but the way it is measured would have to.

	Originally Posted by Still Standing To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, knowledge and intelligence are two different things, and I hate it when someone tries to pass off a knowledge test as an IQ test (by the way, studying a subject matter makes you more knowledgeable in that subject, not smarter).

True. On the flip side, however, all knowledge tests also act as quick and dirty IQ tests, in that the smarter you are, the more knowledge you will acquire from the same study. Knowledge tests are definitely not the best way to measure IQ, but they are the most common. In fact, the inability to avoid measuring IQ at the same time as knowledge is one of the many reasons national standardized tests do not fairly grade schools: schools with smarter students look better because their smarter kids generally have more knowledge, regardless of whether the schools teach them better or worse.

	Originally Posted by Muse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Theres intellect, which is the ability to apply and work with information. And then theres memory, which is the ability to retain information. When the two are used together it becomes knowledge; creating, involving, using.

This is pretty good; I would add that the more intellect you have, the better and more varied the uses you can make of the same knowledge, the faster you acquire the same knowledge, and the more knowledge you acquire from the same experience. Also, intellect and memory do not have to go together, but they normally do.

	Originally Posted by Shryke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Intelligence is the capacity to understand and learn, being smart is the ability to make the best use out of gained knowledge.

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think smart is being able to deal with real life problems quickly and effectively. Intelligence is being able to find solutions to life's problems, including those that don't derive from immediate interactions.

All the research shows that these two things are essentially identical, at least in humans without severe brain damage. Supporting commentary provided and references cited in
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
of mine.

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I saw that article - it's really nothing new. Obviously if someone isn't trying to do his best on a test, he will do worse than someone who is. The headline is hyped a bit.

Exactly so!

	Motivation can obviously make all the difference as far as real-world outcomes (by that I mean financial/career success, not say, groundbreaking works of staggering genius), especially past a certain IQ threshold (probably >125 FSIQ, judging by the work of many researchers.)

At 125 IQ, you're already smarter than 95% of the rest of humanity, so the restriction of range in IQ above that point magnifies the relative impact of everything else, such as motivation. That said, however, there is no threshold above which more IQ does not lead to better performance, given fixed motivation.

	I think the less your fluid intelligence is, the more important it becomes to maximize and focus your special talents and proclivities.

This is excellent advice.

Originally Posted by Galaxy M31 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

They're sometimes used as synonyms colloquially, but my dictionary (Merriam-Webster) thinks they're not one and the same. 'Smart' - knowledgeable, shrewd, witty, clever, saucy, intelligent 'Intelligent' - the ability to learn, understand, and deal with new or trying situations, reason, mental acuteness, the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly, comprehension

I'd rather say it gives a technical definition for intelligence, and lists smart as one of its colloquial synonyms; note that "intelligent" is the last of the one-word definitions of "smart"! Actually, I am very impressed at its definition of intelligence; it covers pretty much everything that fits, which is the same as pretty much everything measured by IQ tests.

	I like to think of it as intelligence being the y-intercept of the graph and smarts being the slope: y = mx + b.

Not a bad start, but that's not quite it; a more accurate model is knowledge equals intelligence times effort, where effort is interpreted as total time spent learning weighted by the focus on and appropriateness of the learning portion of each experience. There is then a further nonlinear positive feedback in that the more knowledge you have, the more your intelligence has to work with. Roughly speaking, in any activity at all, achievement equals talent times effort times opportunity; intelligence is intellectual talent, and motiviation to perform intellectual activity provides the effort factor.

	I wonder though, can intelligence be changed? As we constantly evolve, does our ability to learn and reason change?

Yes and no, depending on what aspect of intelligence you are measuring. An IQ score is formally a relative rank compared to other people your age; the relative rank changes much less with age than absolute performance does. Getting better with practice is the same thing as acquiring a skill -- achievement of automaticity allows the intellect to focus on new things, while turning familiar situations into automated processes. However, what you are able to automate and how fast you do so depends on your intelligence in the first place.

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In my experience there isn't appreciable change as far as measurable fluid intelligence. I think you can sorta nibble around the edges a bit, but there's a very real genetic ceiling.

Very true.

[Napolean]

What is the point of intelligence without other qualities?

In business, intelligence takes a back seat to execution. You can be as dumb as rocks, but if you execute every little idea you have without thinking about it, your success is inevitable.

"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race." - Calvin Coolidge

[rbc]

	Originally Posted by Napolean To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is the point of intelligence without other qualities?

Amusement.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	You can be as dumb as rocks, but if you execute every little idea you have without thinking about it, your success is inevitable.

Not inevitable, but certainly more likely. The inverse is definitely true, however: if you never execute any idea you have, you can never succeed at anything.

	"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.

Coolidge was right up to this point -- what he missed is that the next sentence should read instead, "persistence and determination alone will not; the world is awash in people who determinedly persist at doing foolish and counterproductive things."

The core lesson is that for truly eminent success, you need a combination of all of these things.

[Still Standing]

	Originally Posted by rbc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	All knowledge tests also act as quick and dirty IQ tests, in that the smarter you are, the more knowledge you will acquire from the same study.

But you don't need a high IQ to be an expert at trivia quizzes. Just an excellent memory.

[alt lit]

Absolutely. Smart is knowing stuff. Intelligence is knowing how (or being able to figure out how) to apply that stuff in a variety of contexts.

[rbc]

	Originally Posted by Still Standing To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But you don't need a high IQ to be an expert at trivia quizzes. Just an excellent memory.

Right! But an excellent memory is highly correlated with IQ. There is no essential connection, but there is a very strong statistical one, so a trivia quiz score just happens to be a good bet on someone's IQ. There's no necessary theoretical relationship between memory and intelligence, but there is a very clearly established experimental relationship. You just can't give a trivia quiz to a large population without making at least a poor measurement of IQ, because IQ happens to vary among the population in a way that works out to be quite similar to the way memory does.

In principle, you can find a high-speed processor on the same computer as a tiny disk drive, or a very slow processor on the same computer as a huge fibrechannel RAID array, but it turns out to be quite rare in practice: faster multicore processors do tend to be associated with big fast robust disks, even though they don't have to be. To make a test that works pretty well for many people much of the time, tendency is all you need.