Does being smart matter?

[TheUniqueOne]

That's the way to go DaveT

[Young Athlete]

I'm smart... I have never had a hard time getting in A in anything even in high school when some of my friends are falling behind

[Vlad]

I'm smart... I have never had a hard time getting in A in anything even in high school when some of my friends are falling behind

And? Have you noticed the the thread topic?

[davep]

Smart people tend to over analyze things. There are many areas where this can work against you.

That is a really stupid thing to say.

This argument is really like a fat guy saying "Does being physically healthy matter" and all his fat mates chiming in "no, in our society its pointless / for aesthetics anyway" to make themselves feel better. Im not calling anyone stupid, but insinuating that intelligence is a personality defect is well, a stupid thing to say.

[Vlad]

Smart people tend to over analyze things. There are many areas where this can work against you.

That is a really stupid thing to say.

This argument is really like a fat guy saying "Does being physically healthy matter" and all his fat mates chiming in "no, in our society its pointless / for aesthetics anyway" to make themselves feel better. Im not calling anyone stupid, but insinuating that intelligence is a personality defect is well, a stupid thing to say.

I think you totally misunderstood the statement you are referring to. First of all, it does not say that “intelligence is a personality defect”, either directly or indirectly. Second, pay attention to the statements: “tend to over analyze” and “this can work against you”. These statements do not mean that a smart person will necessarily “over analyze” or it is 100% certain that “this will work against you” even if one over analyses.

That statement simply means that “smartness” if understood as “intelligence” is not required for the success in a gym. However, it does not imply that, if present, it is a handicap for strength training.

In my opinion, over-analysis might work against an individual simply because this analysis could be flawed (no matter how smart one is) and wrong conclusions might be made. This is due to the fact that strength training seems simple on the surface, whereas in reality it is a very complicated subject. However, I do think also that if one is smart than one should be able to understand this, and thus be cautious about the conclusions made.

PS: if you say that someone says stupid things, this is an indirect way of saying that one is stupid; so be careful about insulting: this is not allowed here.

[davep]

I don't think i have misunderstood the statement at all. The insinuation is that a smart person will use all the information at hand and analyze something to the point of confusion, which is a contradiction of being smart. It just read as an overly defensive blanket statement that was used as a way of implying that there is no real benefit to being smart. Also, i believe it was made in a more general context than strength training.

Furthermore, i wasn't trying to be rude or insulting i was stating an opinion on what was said, not trying to insult who said it. I have said many stupid things in my time, and yet don't consider myself stupid. Its just a statement that bugged me, so i thought i would give my opinion. If we go back to the original question then i do think being smart matters. It may not for some people, but it depends on your goals and ambitions and consequently what you want in life.

[badocter]

Smart people tend to over analyze things. There are many areas where this can work against you.

A smart person weighs the effort used to analyze versus the perceived benefit of doing so. A smart person who lacks confidence will over-analyze things to avoid making decisions. A smart person who is lazy may over-analyze to avoid real work or make excuses for lack of progress. Making someone who is lazy or lacks confidence less smart will not improve their performance. Being smart is not the problem...

[sik0fewl]

Ok, NOW we're overanalysing, hehe

I think you're still misinterpreting what Mehdi said, davep.

You're overlooking some key words in his statement: TEND and CAN

There is no ALWAYS or WILL in his statement, but that's how you're taking it. He's just saying that sometimes it can be a disadvantage, not that it will always be a disadvantage.

That being said, for the most part I agree with what badocter just said.

[natew]

A smart person who lacks confidence will over-analyze things to avoid making decisions.

hmm, sounds like someone i know.... i'm not sure though, i can't really decide

[wrenchhands]

I was the student at high school that goofed off a lot, but still got good grades and the teachers liked me. My report cards were always "he could do really well if only he put in some effort". Many years later and I've done some work as a teacher, I've gained a new perspective on this (bear in mind this is teaching English overseas, but I think still relevant).

• the ones that do amazingly well, do so because they have a gift, but also because they study/practice their asses off.

• there are those that do well with little effort, but have the charm and personality to make up for their shortcomings in class. Many of my favorite students were those whose English wasn't the best, but who were fun to talk to.

• some have obvious potential, but don't put it any effort, and so suck. They also make a really poor impression on people because theirs is pure laziness and ambivalence.

• the vast majority are just average.

• the heart-breaking ones are the ones that study/practice extremely hard, pay attention in class and try try try... but have never got it, and never will.

Ha, I feel a kinship with you my friend.

So to was I smart yet extremely lazy, more prone to wise around (in a good way, I didn't fight the teacher or anything).

Now I am a teacher and I look through my school day experiences and reflect with new eyes.

[monkfish]

Smart people tend to over analyze things. There are many areas where this can work against you.

Smartness made me the most indecisive person ever. Plus I was always so stifled and unchallenged at school that I eventually got expelled.

The indecisiveness gave me real problems with life direction and getting frustrated/depressed about things out of my control. Which also kills enthusiasm for things.

Furthermore, although I am technically 'smart' I have a whole heap of learning difficulties too (many smart people do) and I am particularly bad at mathematics. Despite this I love to create & invent and also decided to study and engineering based subject. Because I enjoy challenging and improving my weaknesses (the same way as training) and also understand the importance of mathematical & engineering knowledge to Designing and refining things. I study Engineering Product Design - A good mix of creativity and engineering/manufacturing science.

I've been declared a genius and mentally challenged...at the same time...yeah...
My high school has declared me Learning Disabled to such a spectacular degree that it is classified as mentally challenged, yet I got in the 99th percentile in some national intelligence assessment test (There is no such thing as 100th, 99th is as high as it goes). Anyways, I believe that being smart in of itself doesn't matter, it's how you apply what intelligence you have. Here's a really horrible example: If you are amazing at business and mathematics, you could become a drug dealer, or, you can use that intelligence to benefit mankind somehow. I know it's probably a really stupid example, but I believe it gets the point across.

[erebusii]

Which brings me to my point (finally!): Being smart means nothing. Being smart is the equivalent of being a genetic freak in the weightlifting world. Sure being a genetic freak helps, but a genetic freak with a crappy program and a lack of dedication can be outperformed by a average dedicated lifter. Anyone who works hard and has passion and dedication can beat someone with natural talent (genetics) if the work harder than them, with few exceptions (Competition in the elite level requires genetics and dedication)

I don't believe people are born with intelligence. I believe it is learned and earned, both physical ability and mental ability stems from willpower (minus extreme birth defects limiting either capacity). I myself have a high intelligence, critical thinking, etc. and due to my theory it is because I used willpower to procure it. I will have a superior body (to what I have now) because I have used willpower to take initiative to research and test my findings and will continue to due so as needed. Intelligence and physical fitness are choices. You choose how far to develop them.

[Love_Deadlifts]

Which brings me to my point (finally!): Being smart means nothing. Being smart is the equivalent of being a genetic freak in the weightlifting world. Sure being a genetic freak helps, but a genetic freak with a crappy program and a lack of dedication can be outperformed by a average dedicated lifter. Anyone who works hard and has passion and dedication can beat someone with natural talent (genetics) if the work harder than them, with few exceptions (Competition in the elite level requires genetics and dedication)

I don't believe people are born with intelligence. I believe it is learned and earned, both physical ability and mental ability stems from willpower (minus extreme birth defects limiting either capacity). I myself have a high intelligence, critical thinking, etc. and due to my theory it is because I used willpower to procure it. I will have a superior body (to what I have now) because I have used willpower to take initiative to research and test my findings and will continue to due so as needed. Intelligence and physical fitness are choices. You choose how far to develop them.

Your theory is basically the exact opposite of what all the science and research into genetics and intelligence say is the case.

[erebusii]

How so? We all start from a base state and build up from there. No one starts out an elite athlete or super intelligent. The mind and body can be improved through training. I'm not saying it's infallible, but say compared to the normal lazy person who will do nothing to develop themselves mentally or physically it's a sound theory.

So perhaps I should say, it has been my personal observation that those lacking mental/physical prowess (again barring birth defects or extreme circumstances) are that way because they made the choice not to apply themselves. Again its my personal observation that those who are mentally/physically adept applied themselves. Science may put a limit on it, but it doesn't invalidate the principle: if you don't have the willpower to accomplish something, it will never happen. When I say willpower, that means the willpower to change yourself and your surroundings. It doesn't mean there isn't work involved. A person who had the willpower to get themselves in shape would thus use his/her willpower to meticulously research and experiment with methods of diet and exercise that work quickly and efficiently and then put into long-term practice their findings to develop themselves.

I hope that makes my position clearer.

[Love_Deadlifts]

Basically everybody has a range of possible IQ scores (let's just use this as an example) that they are genetically disposed towards. For example, Person A has a possible range from 85-115, if he has a nurturing environment and really works hard he may reach 115 but that's about as smart as he can get. Person B is the son of 2 geniuses and has a possible range of 120-150. Even if he never applies himself and his parents make no effort to instill knowledge/learning he will still have an IQ of 120, higher than person A who is really trying.
We are saying similar things i think, but we've come to different conclusions.