This may be one of the hardest questions you have asked but I'll give it a go.
I think that I have the ability to be unbiased which is a type of smarts in a way. It allows me to analyze situations and make decisions based on logic rather than my emotional investment in a subject. I look at a problem, form a hypothesis, check the facts, analyze, find a solution, recheck it for any other problems, and repeat the process. I want to make sure I'm solving the right problem as opposed to a surface issue. Sometimes what you think is the problem is actually just an effect of the real situation. Things aren't always easily identified but I think one of my strengths is seeking out what needs to be addressed. I want to be focused so I can find the best solution as having too broad of an issue will make it harder to solve. I believe that hypothesis is important because it creates a type of road-map for approaching the problem. If I hypothesize something and can't fill in holes then I know where to look first. I believe I'm good at asking the questions that probe those holes. I'm always tearing down my ideas and attempting to restructure them into something better. From there I try to find qualitative and quantitative information that will lead me to a better solution. I create lists in my head of all the problems with my hypothesis and then break that down into the major issues that need to be addressed. Granted, I can get stuck in minor details if I find them interesting enough. This is an important part of my thinking process because it keeps things concrete and is central to helping me understand information. I can't just hang on a thread. I need the facts and I need backup on just how factual they are. Finally, I get to the solution and check that for problems. A problem with my "smarts" may be that I find a solution useless unless it can be implemented. I'm always revising my questions as I make new discoveries.
