GrAnDwEeZ:
I'd disagree with the last paragraph. I really don't think wisdom has anything to do with experience. if truly wisdom is in-built, or inherent. rather intelligence has a lot to do with experience and learning, not necessarily within the walls of a classroom.

When i said in-built, i didn't mean being borm with it.

Either way, opinions are meant to differ my brother.

pressplay411:
Hats off zinnyzee. You nailed it.

Thanks, man

OrestesDante:

proverb bah?

YES, SURE.

pressplay411:


That's a very important angle you mentioned. I think in most cases wisdom has an element of spirituality to it.
But then again some [b]unreligious people are wisely running multinational businesses and ruling the world[b/]. It's a thin line between Wisdom and Intelligence, I hope we can unravel it.

@the Bold...True to the Letters!!!

Being religious is different from being Spiritual!!!----practical example is the late Steve Jobs

Wisdom is achieved through experiences(both divine and physical) .
But intelligence is achieved through learning/academics or education ...

They are both achieved but in different ways. Wisdom begins where intelligence ends.

when intelligence speaks, wisdoms listens. intelligence is the know how, why wisdom knowing the best time and place to apply the how how.

It is possible to see an intelligent man who is not wise, but impossible to see a wise man who is unintelligent

Intelligence is knowing that Tomato is a Fruit.
Wisdom is not adding it to a Fruit juice/salad.

Yes, they are very different, although time is usually a function of wisdom, and wisdom usually comes more easily if a person is already intelligent.

It is my belief that there 3 classes of people when it comes to this sort of thing:

1) People who are knowledgeable

2) People who are intelligent

3) People who are wise

People in the first group (especially if they aren't intelligent) are like programmed automatons. Their head is stockpiled with every fact, every important historical date, and every trivia under the sun. They can recite the entire Magna Carta. They are walking libraries. Except that they can't manipulate the knowledge they have. They can't think abstractedly nor can they make connections between the reams of knowledge floating in their heads, and all they do is blind regurgitation. This sort of people only know 'definitions". They can tell you the definition of this and that, but are clueless about the working mechanisms.

People in the second group on the other hand are intelligent, and so naturally would be knowledgeable. Unlike the first group, they have intelligence and can easily absorb, manipulate, and apply the knowledge they have gathered. They are also capable of abstraction and they can synthesize disparate bits of knowledge.

And, lastly, the people in the third group (the wise ones) know when and when not to apply knowledge. Wisdom comes with experience and is sometimes an innate quality.

Intelligent person: Knows how to create an Atom bomb and so he creates one

Wise person: May or may not know how to create an Atom bomb. Understands the ramifications of creating a nuclear weapon and so chooses not to create one.

aaronson:
when intelligence speaks, wisdoms listens. intelligence is the know how, why wisdom knowing the best time and place to apply the how how.

I really like this. Wisely said. Hats off.
Intelligence is the technician, wisdom is the manager.
Intelligence is the lawyer, wisdom is the judge.
Intelligence comes from gaining knowledge and experience in applied knowledge, wisdom comes from best application of intelligence.
How then can we explain kids or teenagers that seem wise beyond their years cos clearly they lack the both the vast knowledge and experience required to be wise yet they just seem so wise beyond their years.

DarkRebel69:
Yes, they are very different, although time is usually a function of wisdom, and wisdom usually comes more easily if a person is already intelligent.

It is my belief that there 3 classes of people when it comes to this sort of thing:

1) People who are knowledgeable

2) People who are intelligent

3) People who are wise

People in the first group (especially if they aren't intelligent) are like programmed automatons. Their head is stockpiled with every fact, every important historical date, and every trivia under the sun. They can recit the entire Magna Carta. They are walking libraries. Except that they can't manipulate the knowledge they have. They can't think abstractedly nor can they make connections between the reams of knowledge floating in their heads, and all they do is blind regurgitation. This sort of people only know 'definitions". They can tell you the definition of this and that, but are clueless about the working mechanisms.

People in the second group on the other hand are intelligent, and so naturally would be knowledgeable. Unlike the first group, they have intelligence and can easily absorb, manipulate, and apply the knowledge they have gathered. They are also capable of abstraction and they can synthesize disparate bits of knowledge.

And, lastly, the people in the third group (the wise ones) know when and when not to apply knowledge. Wisdom comes with experience and is sometimes an innate quality.

Intelligent person: Knows how to create an Atom bomb and so he creates one

Wise person: May or may not know how to create an Atom bomb. Understands the ramifications of creating a nuclear weapon and so chooses not to create one.

Very Interesting. Introducing a disparity between knowlegability and Intelligence is something I never really thought of. But I get your angle. The "programmed automations" are more like the crammers in school right?

pressplay411:


Very Interesting. Introducing a disparity between knowlegability and Intelligence is something I never really thought of. But I get your angle. The "programmed automations" are more like the crammers in school right?

More like indepth crammers. They know stuffs in depth, but that's where it ends. They can't see, and when they see, they can't make connections between seemingly discrete bits of knowledge; they can't synthesize, analyse, or apply knowledge. They are only veritable "vessels" of knowledge.

danieljessy:
I wonder how someone can exercise wisdom without being intelligent

But can be academically intelligent but can't make wise decisions.

DarkRebel69:


More like indepth crammers. They know stuffs in depth, but that's where it ends. They can't see, and when they see, they can't make connections between seemingly discrete bits of knowledge; they can't synthesize, analyse, or apply knowledge. They are only veritable "vessels" of knowledge.

Sub level >> >> XX [] on a Subzero fatality shi.
Sub-ject can't even RIP.

0neal:


@the Bold...True to the Letters!!!

Being religious is different from being Spiritual!!!----practical example is the late Steve Jobs

Yea mostly the Tech giants are clear examples of this.

DarkRebel69:
Yes, they are very different, although time is usually a function of wisdom, and wisdom usually comes more easily if a person is already intelligent.

It is my belief that there 3 classes of people when it comes to this sort of thing:

1) People who are knowledgeable

2) People who are intelligent

3) People who are wise

People in the first group (especially if they aren't intelligent) are like programmed automatons. Their head is stockpiled with every fact, every important historical date, and every trivia under the sun. They can recite the entire Magna Carta. They are walking libraries. Except that they can't manipulate the knowledge they have. They can't think abstractedly nor can they make connections between the reams of knowledge floating in their heads, and all they do is blind regurgitation. This sort of people only know 'definitions". They can tell you the definition of this and that, but are clueless about the working mechanisms.

People in the second group on the other hand are intelligent, and so naturally would be knowledgeable. Unlike the first group, they have intelligence and can easily absorb, manipulate, and apply the knowledge they have gathered. They are also capable of abstraction and they can synthesize disparate bits of knowledge.

And, lastly, the people in the third group (the wise ones) know when and when not to apply knowledge. Wisdom comes with experience and is sometimes an innate quality.

Intelligent person: Knows how to create an Atom bomb and so he creates one

Wise person: May or may not know how to create an Atom bomb. Understands the ramifications of creating a nuclear weapon and so chooses not to create one.

All knowledgeable people are intelligent, but not all intelligent people are knowledgeable.


it's wrong to say that there's a possibility for someone who isn't intelligent to be knowledgeable, the retentive memory, and possession of a vast mental capacity to absorb so much knowledge on a given subject, is characteristic to being intelligent.


knowing so much is one out of the many characteristics that makes an intelligent person, so both are mutually exclusive of each other.

peacesamuel94:

All knowledgeable people are intelligent, but not all intelligent people are knowledgeable.

This is a fallacious statement of the highest order of magnitude. Do you have concrete proof to back this up or is this, as I know it is, merely some milk-and-water claim conjured out of thin air?

it's wrong to say that there's a possibility for someone who isn't intelligent to be knowledgeable , the retentive memory, and possession of a vast mental capacity to absorb so much knowledge on a given subject, is characteristic to being intelligent.

knowing so much is one out of the many characteristics that makes an intelligent person

"Knowing so much" is one out of the many characteristics of an intelligent person (agreed), but "intelligence" is not always a characteristic of people who "know so much".

The problem is that you are treating "intelligence" as merely the ability to assimilate (i.e. to retain information), forgetting that one does not have to be meta-humanly intelligent in order to retain information—one only need have a reliable mnemonic methodology.

so both are not mutually exclusive of each other.

You say it's impossible for one to be knowledgeable without being intelligent, and yet you concluded by saying:- "so both are not mutually exclusive of each other".

When you say two things are not mutually exclusive, what you are in fact saying is that one can exist without the other (an assertion that goes against your initial theory about knowledge being inseperable from intelligence). Do you not understand what "mutual exclusivity" means?

Anyway, while memory capacity is often measured when testing for intelligence, it is secondary when compared to the speed and degree with which one is able to understand and manipulate new information.

It is possible to be able to retain reams of facts without understanding them, nor of knowing how they connect to each other. On the other hand, it's impossible to understand something without being able to retain and recall it to some degree. Therefore, since memorization can take place without comprehension, then it's possible for one to be knowledgeable (i.e. "to know things" or to have reams of facts stored in his head) without being intelligent (i.e. being capable of processing, manipulating and making connections between the newly acquired information on a deeper level).

And while it's seldom for someone to be knowledgeable without being intelligent, there's still a high population of people who fall into this sad category.

You are obviously a neophyte—and not knowledgeable enough—on this subject. If you were not such a tenderfoot, then you would know even the late Kim Peek, who remembered almost everything he read and knew almost every significant historical date in human history, still scored painfully below average in the IQ tests he took. Kim Peek was the guy the movie "Rain Man" was modelled after. The guy in his lifetime was literally a walking encyclopedia, but when it came to analytical reasoning and logical application of the facts swimming in his skull, he always became clueless, like a fidgety deer attacked by the beams of a violent headlight. (Go research for many more people who were like Kim Peek. Nairaland is always a good place to start.)

That's proof that being knowledgeable does not always mean being intelligent. (Another thing:- it's very rare—very rare indeed—for one to be intelligent without being knowledgeable, even if the person were to only be knowledgeable about a particular discipline i.e. a monomaniac).

[quote author=DarkRebel69 post=61975909]

This is a fallacious statement of the highest order of magnitude. Do you have concrete proof to back this up or is this, as I know it is, merely some milk-and-water claim conjured out of thin air?



"Knowing so much" is one out of the many characteristics of an intelligent person (agreed), but "intelligence" is not always a characteristic of people who "know so much".

The problem is that you are treating "intelligence" as merely the ability to assimilate (i.e. to retain information), forgetting that one does not have to be meta-humanly intelligent in order to retain information—one only need have a reliable mnemonic methodology.



You say it's impossible for one to be knowledgeable without being intelligent, and yet you concluded by saying:- "so both are not mutually exclusive of each other".

When you say two things are not mutually exclusive, what you are in fact saying is that one can exist without the other (an assertion that goes against your initial theory about knowledge being inseperable from intelligence). Do you not understand what "mutual exclusivity" means?


You should know this was a mistake, I actually meant the opposite.

when I say all knowledgeable people are intelligent, I'm simply saying that it takes a degree of intelligence to have a good and retentive memory. to acquire great knowledge , as they're still part of the criteria for judging intelligence.

It wouldn't be safe to call Kim peek an unintelligent person would it?

sinaj:
foolish? No. Mentally Challenged? Yea. We were all born with a certain quantity of IQ that determines our intelligence. If the IQ is below average in a person, the person might not be able to acquire wisdow hereby making him act foolish. Thats where Idiot, down syndrome nd klin. comes in.

True.
m. o ron < im.bec.ile < idiot on hierarchy of I.Q

Nairaland spambot changed the words

Wisdom is applied knowledge. That's to say applying what you already know. A programmer is said to have wisdom if he is able to apply the programming concepts to build applications.
.
Intelligence is the ability to know! The potential of knowing. The capability of knowing. Again everyone may not understand the concepts of Algebra because they are not intelligent enough. Also someone may not understand the meaning of an Atom because they are not intelligent.
.
In summary, for an intelligent person, I think virtually anything can be understood with less effort, whereas for a wise person, any knowledge can be applied.
.
So someone who is intelligent may not be wise enough. They comprehend but can't apply their knowledge. However, a wise person can be intelligent and as well be able to apply their knowlege.

We wish to say a very big congratulations to all candidates who will be making their way down to the university this academic session. we congratulate you fro your effort which eventually granted you success but above all we all know that it is simply the grace of God that saw you through.
However, we wish to let everyone who could not further into the university simply because of their WAEC or NECO. There is an opportunity for you, it takes your courage and believe to make it through this time. remember, if it is only WAEC or NECO that is your problem, that is to say with your WAEC results and NECO complete your admission is set and settled,
OR
That you are a graduate but did not come out of the university with a certificate but wants to work or you that you did not go to the university but needs a job because you are very skilled and talented.
Then contact us for immediate assistance that will make you smile once again..call us on 09075188015. With God all things are possible. Do not waste another one year sitting at home when there is an alternative

peacesamuel94:

It wouldn't be safe to call Kim peek an unintelligent person would it?

Why theorize before having data? It's a shocking habit, don't you think? More so, it makes a person appear silly, if not dumb.

Kim Peek scored 87 in the general IQ tests he took. That's not "unintelligent"... that's borderline mental retardation.

DarkRebel69:


Why theorize before having data? It's a shocking habit, don't you think? More so, it makes a person appear silly, if not dumb.

Kim Peek scored 87 in the general IQ tests he took. That's not "unintelligent"... that's borderline mental retardation.

what makes you think I don't have data. I think it makes people appear even more silly and dumb to use abusive words on people, because you don't agree with their opinions.

peacesamuel94:

what makes you think I don't have data. I think it makes people appear even more silly and dumb to use abusive words on people, because you don't agree with their opinions.

If you had data then you wouldn't have insinuated that Kim Peek (a guy who scored a measly 87 on the general IQ tests he took) may not have been unintelligent. This is a guy who could not even function as a human being without the help of his father.

I didn't use abusive words on you. I only spoke the truth. You are slow & your intellect is zero. Now, kindly fück off.

[quote author=DarkRebel69 post=62050600]

If you had data then you wouldn't have insinuated that Kim Peek (a guy who scored a measly 87 on the general IQ tests he took) may not have been unintelligent. This is a guy who could not even function as a human being without the help of his father.

I didn't use abusive words on you. I only spoke the truth. You are slow & your intellect is zero. Now, kindly fück off.



OK.

DarkRebel69:


If you had data then you wouldn't have insinuated that Kim Peek (a guy who scored a measly 87 on the general IQ tests he took) may not have been unintelligent. This is a guy who could not even function as a human being without the help of his father.

I didn't use abusive words on you. I only spoke the truth. You are slow & your intellect is zero. Now, kindly fück off.

You've made very intelligent opinions on this thread but I don't think the harsh words were necessary. You're both of divergent views no harm in that.
If I could crave your intellectual indulgence further, is wisdom spiritually inspired or experience based?

[quote author=peacesamuel94 post=61977436][/quote]

I don't think Kim Peek should be classified as unintelligent. Although his case is rather unusual and could be attributed to a cerebral damage enhancing certain abilities viz assimilation in Kim's case while creating deficiencies in other basic abilities.
But the issues here is not knowledgeablity VS intelligence but intelligence VS wisdom. Whats the difference?

pressplay411:



But the issues here is not knowledgeablity VS intelligence but intelligence VS wisdom. Whats the difference?

I think they complement each other, we need a degree of intelligence to exhibit wisdom, and wisdom itself is a quality of the intelligent, i see it as the ability to apply and manipulate knowledge or rather your intelligence to your advantage and putting it to more practical use

peacesamuel94:



I think they complement each other, we need a degree of intelligence to exhibit wisdom, and wisdom itself is a quality of the intelligent, i see it as the ability to apply and manipulate knowledge or rather your intelligence to your advantage and putting it to more practical use

True. But is wisdom experience based or just God-given? Does it have some spirituality to it?

pressplay411:


True. But is wisdom experience based or just God-given? Does it have some spirituality to it?

As a theist I believe it does, I believe we all have wisdom deposited in us, which is traceable to creation. However, how well we are able to demonstrate and maximize it, is solely dependent on our level of experience

0neal:


@the Bold...True to the Letters!!!

Being religious is different from being Spiritual!!!----practical example is the late Steve Jobs

This is the fact.