Is being clever the same as being smart?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Acitnoids, Dec 7, 2019.

  1. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    In principle I would say no.

    I see the difference between the two as the following.

    •Clever people are witty and can quickly come up with ways to justify their point of view.

    •Smart people know facts and can discuss various topics of knowledge with some degree of understanding.

    Yes, both are intelligent. Yes, both have points of view but that are not in dispute.

    Is being clever equal to being smart? I agree that both can be considered intelligent. IMHO one has answers based on wit. The other has answers based on knowledge.

    What do you think?
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    an answer based on wit is not a factual answer
    this makes the answer wrong
    this defines your "clever person" as a compulsive liar who is probably a borderline narcissist
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    That is not what I was hoping for ... I was looking for something deeper.

    A criminal can be clever but does that make him smart? I agree that a criminal can be intelligent. Narcissism is a different topic.

    Wit had nothing to do with narcissism in my context but I agree that wit is not the same as being smart.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Criminals under oppressive political regimes might be considered smart.

    If you have to improvise merely to survive then seemingly intelligent and conformist behaviour would be (ask a N Korean) that of a dull person or a dotard.
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    It can be.
    Not necessarily.
    That is neither a smart thing to say nor a clever way to say it.
    Seattle likes this.
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    I think you're misusing the word "clever", adding a connotation of deviousness that doesn't have to be there.
  10. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Common usage of "smart" may carry a semantic resonance of usually working inside institutional standards or "the box" cliche. Less risk-taking; reliable and somewhat predictable resourcefulness in terms of problem-solving, knowledge, and creativity.

    Common usage of "clever" may carry a semantic resonance of often straying outside "the box" bromide. More risk-taking, originality and somewhat unpredictable resourcefulness in problem-solving, knowledge, and creativity.

    It would arguably be rare for anyone to slot wholly and constantly as one or the other in terms of such classification (absolutely smart or clever).

    There's intelligence with respect to developing new knowledge and skills and recognizing new patterns (clever?). And then there's intelligence with respect to holding a lot of rote knowledge in memory and exhibiting adroitness via that (smart?), along with the competence of experience. Again, people can be a mix in varying degrees.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    It just depends on how you are choosing to define those terms (clever vs smart). It appears to me that you are equating smart to knowledgeable and clever to IQ or intelligence.

    If so, you've answered your own question. No.

    They are two different things. You can be intelligent and not knowledgeable and you can be knowledgeable and not particularly intelligent.

    They usually do go together however. Intelligent people usually are also knowledgeable. One is the innate ability and the other is the application, what you have done with that ability.
    Vociferous likes this.
  12. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Why does being witty, or an agile thinker indicate either dishonesty or narcissism?
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Why the psychological analysis with every response? You're obviously not very good at it.
  14. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    because the thread author has clearly defined the moral parameters against the concept of being correct and the concept of being socially savvy as opposing sides
    the nature of correct having an opposite side defines it as incorrect
    incorrect by intent and design is to lie

    lying in social situations is often defined as acceptable
    people use the lie of being honest to try and get other to tell them stuff they would otherwise not discuss.
    they lie in pretending to be honest to gain trust and personal information to become exploitative of a persons trust

    this is dishonest and a liar
    very common

    the thread author is clearly showing trait's of narcissistic normalization(acceptance) [also very common and normal in many cultures]

    supposedly stealing is never ok
    but lying is
    this is purely a cultural acceptance thing

    psychological anthropology & Sociology
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    "learning intelligence"
    i have met one or two people who have this through my life(possibly 15 to 20 people over 30 years)
    it is fascinating to observe
    while the socialite narcissistic thinks this means being rich & famous it goes completely unnoticed by most.

    there is some critical attachment to the Ego that seems to govern the ability
    the bigger the ego the less the person can learn

    humans surely are an odd creature
  16. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    implicit bias
    you have added "agile"

    agile thinker is someone with high function fluid dynamics

    someone with a quick answer is just a dog doing tricks

    are you talking about a dog doing tricks barking fast words in genre response to group themes ?
    or an agile thinker who can process fluid dynamics of thought quickly, processing thinking and producing complex functional thought ?

    a dog doing tricks is predictable and people trust it because it wont take their job or social status
    the lovable human dog at the social show...
    that is not an agile thinker of a person even though they may have charm and everyone loves them.
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i think your need to create an us verses them reality of absolutes is a sign of a duopoly natured thought process between religion and implied false liberalism and you are pandering to what you hope is a pre-coded audience who sill simply agree with your pre-existing rules and thoughts and maybe have a slight hint of something slightly new but not to far out from what you think
    giving you a sense of acceptance and normalisation which is what your seeking primarily.

    and that you didnt really want to know what people thought
    i hope i am wrong
    we will see
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Clever people figure out novel ways to solve problems

    Smart people let the person who they solve the problem for take the credit

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    No, he has not.
    He did not posit those trait as opposites. He made a distinction between them and asked whether we agree.
    (I don't, in substance; I think that observation is of superficial appearance.)
    Again, no. The words are opposite, but they convey nothing about intent or deceit, and were not used here.
    It's perfectly possible for someone to know what they're talking about, based on effortful learning of facts, and also be able to present that knowledge in a palatable style, so that people are both edified and entertained, both convinced and charmed. (Carl Sagan springs to mind. Steven Pinker, David Suzuki....)
    indeed, correct, as in diplomacy and good manners
    How is that relevant?
    He isn't and has not, afaik, deserved this attack.
    I added nothing. I substituted 'agile thinker' for 'can come up quickly with ways to justify their point of view' for brevity. It's nothing to do with fluid dynamics, of which I am wholly ignorant, even though I can think quickly and am sometimes even able to navigate though other people's turgid vocabularies to discover what they actually mean.
    Present company excepted, GWS.

    in the eye of the beholder, maybe
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
  20. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    charm i would define as something else
    social rules

    the intent to entertain which you outlined, being a charm aspect but more aligned with being a comic relief etc... breaking a somber mood, helping to enliven an audience etc.

    using words to belay a concept by offering an alternative to seek the audience to not believe the other meaning
    the deception of appearing honest as a form of polar discourse
    setting up an either or to elicit a sense of conformity to set an agenda(i am not suggesting the thread author has nefarious intent, it is in some instances culture and entertainment)
    roasting dinners etc.

    to define a topic for discussion offering an either or elicits a specific range of results to come in line to a pre-conceived intended meaning.
    this in its self is manipulation using terms to change the subject nature definition
    which is my comment

    i see it used often as a means to try and position the self into a place of power or authority over another to try and force compliance to answer questions that have a direct intent to then categorize the people/person by their responses and agreements.
    coercive manipulation for nefarious intent(bullying, social class definition, work place authority superiority etc)

    this is a normal human trait
    narcissism's a scale concept much like autism inside the personality sense of self actualization(very advanced psychology)
    not an attack just an opinion of the innate personal nature of the desire to seek an outcome that services the inner mind.
    like saying someone desires something
    the mind desires things
    the ego desires things
    narcissism as a mechanism of the self seeks to carry out the function to service the Ego and self esteem.

    everyone has implicit bias except for some extremely autistic people and some other conditions of the mind

    unraveling ones implicit bias is a key
    extremely confronting and often resulting in mental breakdowns and best done with a professional psychologist

    & alternatively
    the whole sum of the personality is a bit more complex
    while i do not wish to admonish the author, i am suggesting the nature of implicit bias could tend to swing the discussion into a grouping nature.
    rendering a whole person to be one or the other is type casting
    done with sexuality/race/gender it is a tricky subject to navigate.

    what is the on flow definition parables
    the next stage ?
    can a witty person be caring ?
    can a smart person be racially sensitive ?
    the polarizing aspect can then lead away to engender a nature of compulsory classification.

    complex psychological discussion of the nature of human mind is not something seen on this forum in general
    the sense of attachment to have the Ego run rampant and assume things to be personally attached because of troll behaviour is a reactive thing.
    being simple and clear on technical aspects of psychoanalysis...

    ... sub heading
    defining types of people
    defining types of emotional personalities
    religious concepts
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
  21. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    According to the dictionary, one of the synonyms for clever is “intelligent.” But could someone lack intelligence and still come across as clever? Hmm.
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Sure, especially if you (the observer) aren't.

    It would be even more likely if the exposure to the "clever" person is of short duration. For example sometimes you see a good looking person around the office and you make certain positive assumptions about what they must be like until one day you meet them, they speak, and you realize you were being overly generous with your assumptions.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    people sell themselves very often to be intelligent when they are just smart at appearing clever when they are incapable of being intellectually smart.

    that type of clever is called cunning
    cunning is usually associated with a negative intent
    does the intent define the nature of the smartness/cleverness ? thats an odd question im not really asking

Share This Page