If I may interject into this rather fascinating semantical debate...
What we have here, is a failure to communicate! Some [individuals] you just can't reach...
In Alice144's defence, she is both accurate and inaccurate. Accurate in the inwardly perceived context with which she uses the terms. Inaccurate in the outwardly perceived potential context of the terms by others. Her usage of smart, dumb and intelligent are only parts of a whole that she does not fully know how to communicate in a succinct manner that others would understand and so chooses to use broader simpler terms instead. If people find the inappropriate use of words to be offensive, I assure you it is unintentional. Even the construct of her arguments would appear to be immature condescension and arrogance, again, I assure you that is also unintentional.
There is a general misunderstanding by all parties, to various degrees, in the understanding of IQ, intellligence, smart, etc (within the context of the semantical debate with Alice144). What Alice144 means in the usage of smart or intelligence is that she connects more easily with those who have a higher level reasoning/understanding, specifically those that share similar interests in the topics that Alice144 enjoys. The best (or only) place where she has thus far discovered to find such individuals are at University. That is not to say that those who score lower on an IQ test, or have a lower education level would be able to communicate with her at her desired level of understanding, it is that she has come yet to come across one such person that can. Given the low statistical probability that she would randomly cross paths with one such person that can communicate on a level of understanding in the wide range of topics that she desires, it is
as if it were a non-existent possibility. Given that University presents a much higher probability to find such intellectuals, and the highly improbability of other individuals with the desired characteristics, it is much easier to say smart or dumb, than convey all that I have explained.
There are varying challenges and differences at the much higher intelligence levels. There is a significant difference between average, gifted, genius, etc. It may lead to isolation, but not always. It becomes far more difficult to convey complex ideas succinctly in ways that others can understand. That does not mean that everyone who has an IQ of 140+ will automatically understand, but the probability is higher.
Sidenote: Interestingly, the level of understanding of someone with an approximate IQ of 160+, would make an individual with an IQ of 140, look retarded.
Why do I think my assumptions of Alice144's intentions are accurate (or at least not far off)? I have similar challenges. It is infuriating. It is often difficult to find the correct words to convey a complex nonverbal understanding of a concept (and I have found that many such words/expressions do not exist). The label of calling others 'dumb' (and has a far wider connection of meanings than I'm about to use) is in part an ego self-defence mechanism. Or in Jung's terms, projecting the shadow unto others. It is not so much that others are dumb (though in part it is, but without the harsh judgemental connotation that you are probably associating with the word) it is that we feel dumb for not being able to communicate what seems to be a rather simple concept to us in terms that others can understand. An INFJ often develops a strong command of metaphor to convey these things. Unfortunately, I skipped that class. And an ENTP's dominant Ne function probably couldn't be bothered wasting time simplifying, when they can be moving on to the next idea.
To sum up, she is unintentionally applying broad generalizations, in a socially unacceptable manner, to convey deeper, complex arguments.
Interesting fact about Paladin-X -- highest educational level achieved? High School Diploma, completed in Adult Ed no less. Just to throw a wrench into your arguments on University-educated intellectuals...
./lawyered
