- #71
Darkiekurdo
- 112
- 0
Why?
Darkiekurdo said:Why?
Could be, but is he creative?B. Elliott said:Two of the primary definitions of 'smart' is knowledgeable, and mentally alert. Kim Peek has to be one of the most mentally alert people I have ever seen, and is a sponge for facts and knowledge. As the video I posted conveys, most people who are labeled as geniuses are usually extremely gifted in one, two, or maybe even three different areas. Kim peek exceeds exceptional in all areas at a dear cost... a sacrifice in conceptualizing and social skills.
Darkiekurdo said:Could be, but is he creative?
B. Elliott said:Staying within the definition of the OPs original question, creativity is not an an aspect of 'smart'. If the question was who is the most creative, Kim Peek would not be a choice.
Darkiekurdo said:Why not? I don't think someone who is only able to absorb knowledge and not apply it is very smart.
Of course, do you think your definition of 'smart' is universal?B. Elliott said:And that's what you think.
Darkiekurdo said:Of course, do you think your definition of 'smart' is universal?
Kurdt said:Playing the definition card is useless. Most people get obscenely irritated when people ask them to define terms but it is only natural if a conversation is to remain coherent that everyone knows exactly what they're talking about. So much time is wasted over minutiae if terms are not defined. B. Elliot made his point and that's that. This thread is ancient so I doubt we'll get to see what the OP actually meant by smart.
FZ+ said:Bill Gates, perhaps, because he is smart enough to realize you can make money out of this "microcomputer" thing.
He is certainly the most successful in terms of getting rich, which is how success is normally measured in the modern, capitalist world.
timejim said:HMMMMMMM, I would consider Stephen Hawking.