Are scientists automatically smarter than everyone else?

Mostly, yeah. If you're good at things like physics, maths, etc. Usually you approach things logically, and if you do that, you're probably smarter than someone who isn't a scientist or a mathematician. Plus there is probably a correlation with scientists being generally more knowledgeable as they have actually studied. Although not EVERYTHING, but generally, I think so.

generally they are

Depends on the individual, but no, being a scientist doesn't necessarily make you smarter than anyone else just like being a priest doesn't necessarily make you holier than anyone else.

Scientifically? Yes. At logical and analytical thinking? Yes.
Superior? Depends on the definition of superior but generally, no. Every person is equal.

That literally makes no sense. The definition of holier is dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose.... Which a priest is.

Smarter than most people? Yes. Superior as a human being? No.

But people need to realize that not everything scientists say is 100% fact.

They are

they aren't "automatically" smarter, they achieved this through hard work and study

Superior Iron Man approves you logic.

@pyrogram: You've never heard the saying "Holier than thou?" It means someone is more dedicated, or consecrated, or at least they think they are. Biblically we're all called to be witnesses to christ, priests and pastors are the shepherds of the flock. But they can be led astray just like everyone else. They've sinned, and they still sin, just like everyone else. The grace their given is no more and no less than the grace God gives to the rest of us. For that reason, they aren't holier, they just have a different calling.

@spitfirepanda: The term Holier than thou is slang, more or less, it's not a real saying. Priests are holier, they've dedicated their lives to God. I'm anti-religion (but not an Atheist), and you're saying a priest is as holy as me or a random person on the street?

That's a very good point.

Obviously its automatic. Why do you think people try to become scientists? Do you think its because science is a tool of discovery, investigation, analysis, testing, observation, and other processes that involve constant effort, mistakes, improvements, learning, modification and revision and basically everything that is the antithesis of automatic conclusions and presumptions? Pfft as if, scientists just want others to think they have superior intellects. Thats why they spend lots of time in labs or doing field work, tests and experiments and studying and spending thousands for an education. Why do you think they wear lab coats and glasses.

Words like "smarter" can be a problematic word to use, many people associate it with overlapping ideas (consider intelligent versus knowledge) scientists are usually more knowledgable than others in their field, but theres nothing automatic about it, its learning. Just like professional (and even amateur) athletes in respective sports will usually demonstrate more competency/skill than the average person. Then individuals possessing superiority in anything for excelling in some areas is just… a bit odd to ask? Its like asking if anyone excelling with one quality excels in all qualities. Also different types of intelligence and application of. Certain traits may predispose certain individuals towards certain occupations, I wouldn't be surprised if scientists share certain qualities to do with analytical ability, reasoning skills, critical thinking that may be above average but the great thing about science is that effort, patience and consideration can pay off, same with sport. So I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of scientists are scientists because of hard work and effort rather than having extraordinary intellectual ability. Then of course most individuals have a combination of natural ability and learned ability for general skills/abilities.

@pyrogram: I'm a non denominational Christian, so I can only speak from this perspective. The bible says that we have all fallen short of the glory of God, priests are no exception. Yes, they devote their lives to God, but the bible also says that it is by grace we are saved through faith, not by works. From my view, devoting your life to God doesn't make you holier than anyone. Priests go through the same temptations that everyone else goes through. They aren't above it, and a righteous priest won't deny that they struggle as much as anyone else. We're all called to devote our lives to God and trust in his word. That doesn't mean we're all called to be priests. We're called to have a relationship with our heavenly father.

@spitfirepanda: Fair enough, if it's the religious meaning, I can't dispute that.

Knowledge and Intelligence are two different thing in most cases.

Pilasy:La Voix d'un homme

Not necessarily. You can be book smart or smart in terms of practicality but lack common sense

Smarter in thier field of study.

Generally, yes. But the answer varies all the way to 'lolnope' depending on what kind of situation you're referring to when you say 'intelligence'.

No. The fact is it makes you better in your field and still not to many other scientists. The OP's question is intellectually superior to a that person in everything. That clearly isn't the case.

How?

Because they are smart enough to do the things the do?

I can't believe people are saying yes to this question. This isn't an rpg where becoming a scientist bumps your int stat

Even the example doesn't pan out, a mathematician is almost certainly going to be better than the Chemist at maths, he just specializes.

This

@hylian: @leo-343: Yes but this says 'intellectually superior to that person at everything'

Scientists are smarter in their fields. You can be terrible at geography and still do well in inorganic chemistry for example.

Intelligence is a very diverse and disputed concept. There is no solid working definition of what intelligence actually is. Here is one from "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" which is a pretty popular definition:

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions

The key word here is domain. I feel that most scientist, which one day I hope to be, are better at understanding complex ideas, adapting effectively to the environment, learning from experience, engaging in various forms of reasoning, and overcoming obstacles by taking thought in their field of study.

However, the same could be said about an athlete in his domain or a charismatic leader in his domain. A "street smart" person may understand complex social nuances, adapt to a new environment, and overcome obstacles in real world situations better than a scientist.

IQ is not the end-all-be-all of intelligence and achievement. Richard Feynman "only" scored a 126 (not high enough to get into Mensa), yet he was a Nobel Prize winning physicist.

Ooh...the arrogance of scientists. I guess you can say they are not.

Definitely no.. in certain aspects maybe.. but i or some people know some things scientists don't. Each scientists has their own field of expertise.

No. Just because you chose to go into one particular field of study and someone else chose to go into another does not make you smarter or dumber. They will be smarter in that field though, because that is what they have dedicated themselves to.

Have you met string theorists?

Yes

There's IQ and EQ. Most people have a balance of both. Now here's the interesting part, people that specialize more in one area or master both areas are the ones that stand out.

That being said, we are social mammals, and as a society we connect more emotionally with one another. This tends to develop more of a EQ, heck we're on a forum to discuss a hobby of ours after wall. Hence why a lot more people have a higher EQ.

Now statistically speaking, people fail and get weeded out in the sciences at a greater ratio than any other major. These are the people with a high IQ. They're just able to solve puzzle like problems more easily. Not many people fall into this category.

I would say having a high EQ or IQ can deem someone as "smart."

Noooo most worked there a$$ off to get to where they are, and with the use of repitition and practice they became good in the feild they study.

Your title and the question in your post don't match.

At everything? No.

Depends

Well, I feel like there are different types of "smarts" for instance, there is book smart and then there is street smart. Being strong in one area does not automatically mean one will be strong in the other.

Not necessarily, I mean, I'm sure exceptions can be made.

For the most part.

I know electrical engineers who couldn't figure out how to fix a toilet if someone held a gun to their heads.

Yes

Just ask yourself,who would you trust to do your homework

Average joe or a scientist

Obviously the scientist

The term 'scientist' is actually a term that encompasses hundreds of different disciplines and fields. Just because someone has a PhD doesn't make them some kind of supergenius that knows everything. Fiction tends to present genius that seem to be expert at everything, but that is not really possible. To gain expertise to the point of being a world-class expert at something requires thousands of hours of study and practise. So that would require pretty focused attention.

However, since scientists have spent so long studying and exercising their brain, they are more adept when it comes to using logical methods to solve problems. Someone who has a mindless job, never reads, and generally avoids thinking tends to be 'dumber'.

But, then again, there are geniuses that seem like idiot savants. They can calculate quantum equations in their heads, but they can berely function in a normal life.

So, I guess it really comes down to how you would define 'smart'.

Only when you are looking at their specific field of interest.

Smartness itself is a relative term, dependent on what is talked about in that moment.

They're smarter in their fields, of course, but then, a judge is smarter in his or her field. Everybody is particularly knowledgeable about certain element(s), moreso than others in that element, but there will always be things other people know that you don't. There's numerous forms of intelligence - scientists will probably have a high level of memory and calculational/analytical skill (and other mathematical facets like pattern observation), but only practical scientists are likely to have a high level of bodily coordination because of their constantly doing practical experiments. Theoretical scientists will be easily better in calculating things, but not so much at doing the things themselves. Generally, though, scientists won't be as talented in the arts, such as music and visual art. But of course, every individual has predisposed traits towards certain areas, and less talent in other areas, so you could also get a scientist who is a great artist but a poor linguist, and so on.