Is "gifted" and "smart" overused?

[YPestis]

I'm not sure if this topic belongs here or in chatter but here goes.

Homeschooling is often a common topic of conversation here, although usually to disparage the fundies who make laughable attempts at "education" with their King James Bible. We make fun of fundies who brag about the "superior" education they bring to Johnny who is learning that humans kept dinosaurs as pets. But fundies, like their secular counterparts, also fall into the trap of over estimating the intelligence of their children. This is a pet peeve of mine, the over use of "gifted" or "smart", especially by parents. I don't mean parents who simply brag about their child winning first place at a cute toddler contest. I'm talking about the mother who claims her son is gifted. I think it annoys me because it's usually applied to awesomely normal kids. Gifted is a term applied to a very small segment of the population. It is rare. We are not suppose to have a classroom full of them in every school (as some schools will have a "gifted" class).

Now, the term "smart" is easier for me to swallow because it falls somewhere between "above average" to "certified genius". Einstein is smart, right? So are a lot of people I knew in school. So is hubby (although I'm biased!). Again here, I get annoyed by people who talk up their children as "smart" when little Jane has done nothing to earn that designation. She brings home average work, has average grades, perform at an average level. Shouldn't "smart" be someone a bit ahead of the curve?

I blame the overuse of such words on the self-esteem movement of the 80's. Teachers and parents were taught how important it was to praise children so everyone did. Perhaps some people thought more is better. They started talking about their "gifted" child and how "talented" they are blah blah. The reality is their child is not gifted, probably not even smart, and sometimes lazy. Just admit it and move on. It may sound harsh but I see more harm done when parents over-praise kids or puff up their children like that. Wouldn't it be better if kids were taught it's OK to be average and it's hard work that matters more? It's what I was taught as a child. My parents made no effort to tell me I was smart, and I think their estimation of my 'averageness" was accurate. However, I was still a high achiever because they stressed hard work over intrinsic ability. To me, that's infinitely more helpful, especially to the 99% of us that are not gifted.

So, to bring it back to homeschooling. I have stated in the past that I generally do not favor homeschooling over a decent public school. However, the one area I make exception to is the truly gifted and highly motivated who are easily bored by the "average" schoolwork provided. I think homeschooling is preferable to a lifetime in a dumbed down curriculum. As soon as I add that caveat in, I feel many homeschooling mammas calm down thinking, "well, my son *is* gifted" and self-motivated. Actually, what I'm saying is your kid is probably normal and would thrive just as well at a decent public school. There's nothing special about your child. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. Truth of the matter is, most kids are neither gifted nor highly motivated to do Things That Matter (like composing symphony or finding a cure for cancer).

Hello, my name is YPestis and I'm no genius. And neither is your child.

[rezski44]

Well my son was in the gifted program from 1st grade, he played HS football and then went on to play college ball. He finished 2 undergrad degrees and then he got his MS in Neurobiology. The main reason we had him tested was to get h out of a bussing program that would have put im in a bad and distant part of town. I don't think if I had homeschooled him that would have happened but you never know. He was way into the social aspect of high school as well. He was "normal" and scary smart. Public school suited him well. I may be proud of him but in reality he made his own success from an inner strength.

[PopRox]

Well said. I see that among a handful parents I know; not just the homeschoolers but among mainstream families as well (I am not a parent, but I work with kids).

Was it Abigail that had the nearly-illiterate "gift child" with Oppositional Defiant disorder (common in kids with unstable home lives)?

[Guest Anonymous]

[snippy snip]

However, the one area I make exception to is the truly gifted and highly motivated who are easily bored by the "average" schoolwork provided.

I think there are a lot of people like this. I remember kids in my class who were just so bored of moving so slowly while they were waiting for everyone else to catch up. There are other factors too. My brother is very smart. He was streaks ahead in terms of languages, music, maths and science. However, his teachers just didn't bother to teach him. There was another boy in his class who looked "just like him" (i.e. he was the other black boy) and the teachers cheerfully taught them as a set, confusing their grades and not bothering to tell one from the other. The expectations they set for black boys were very, very low. What's the point of learning in that environment? What's the point of trying your hardest? My brother couldn't be bothered with it. Instead, he taught himself to speak a number of foreign languages and to play different musical instruments.

Edit: my post is more about public schooling than homeschooling... ah, well...

[Marian the Librarian]

your kid is probably normal and would thrive just as well at a decent public school. There's nothing special about your child. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. Truth of the matter is, most kids are neither gifted nor highly motivated to do Things That Matter (like composing symphony or finding a cure for cancer).

Bingo! Well said. In my line of work, I deal with homeschooling parents a lot, fundie and otherwise. To the overused terms "gifted" and "smart," I would add "he/she is reading above grade level," as that's one I hear all the time, and it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. If the kid is reading, they're reading. Turn them loose in the library, give them some time, and just like water, they will seek their own level.

For me, the $64K question is the level of parental ego involved. If they've chosen homeschooling because it's truly in the best academic interests of the kid, all well and good. But if they're doing it because it's really all about how Mom and Dad produced this spectacular uber-child, and aren't we wonderful speshul snowflake parents, then I get annoyed.

[javafriend]

Yes, as an educator, I can verify that the term "gifted" is overused. For a very interesting take on the concept of intelligence, I highly reccomend the work of Carol Dweck, especially her book, "Mindsets". Her descriptions of growth vs fixed mindsets and their impact on the ability to acquire knowledge is applicable to everyone.

There is no reason to believe that exceptionally bright students can't do well in a public school setting. However, parents do need to be advocates for their children and make sure that their child is being provided with challenging material. Sometimes there is a mistaken belief that very bright children need less instruction and intervention, when the opposite is actually true. In my experience, informed advocacy by parents has made the public school setting work for most children.

Disclaimer: Contrary to popular belief, getting poor grades, misbehaving and failing to pay attention or complete assignments does not automatically mean your child is exceptionally bright and acting out due to boredom. Yes, sometimes this can be a sign of a child who needs more academic challenge. However, these behaviors can also be the result of lack of self-discipline, lack of parental guidance and other issues.

[rural juror]

I completely agree. I never understood why being average has negative connotations. Most people are average. If so many people were above average, then the average would, by definition, be higher. I also don't understand this notion that kids have to be told they're special/gifted, otherwise they'll suffer from cripplingly low self-esteem. In my (albeit limited) experience, small children have an inflated sense of self as it is. I understand praising your kid when they do something well, telling them them they're a good kid, etc. But telling them they're "special" will imply that they are somehow different or better/superior to others, which is not good in my opinion.

[mockingbird]

It was fairly popular when I was growing up for parents to actually have their kid's IQ tested - honestly I think so they could brag about it. At the public school that is now part of getting into the elementary school gifted program. I also know someone on another board who has to bring up how "gifted" her kids are in almost every freaking post. Soooo annoying. Sorry us mere mortals are not that special.

I think the special snowflake thing really does a child disservice. Allowing for failure, asking them to challenge themselves, and teaching a child to be humble (vs. egotistical with the whole "so specially gifted" thing) will all help the child to grow up into a functioning adult. Not only in academics but in real life. Not everyone is going to like you and not everything is going to be easy. Even something like living away from home for the first time can be hard and for someone who has never had to challenge themselves, never failed and/or was never told they were wrong, it could be a rude awakening or even something that scares them so much they shy away from doing it. Or a first job. It's not all going to be rainbows and butterflies and at some point you are going to have to just sit down and put in the work. I had one friend in high school who ended up being a national merit scholar, but blatantly told us that she stayed in the "easy" classes because she didn't have to put in any effort to do well, and that made her feel good about herself. She was afraid of doing anything "hard" and hated having to work at something. How did allowing that help her to develop skills for coping with challenges later in life? (And also, if her fear of failure/challenging herself was rooted in an anxiety disorder, her parents also did her a disservice by ignoring it instead of getting her help.)

Another kid who was in my AP classes had super special snowflake parents. I always got the impression that he thought failure meant someone was out to get you or didn't like you. It wasn't normal. He was very arrogant - I think because all his parents did was tell him how special he was. Anyway, I heard that last year he tried to apply to some graduate programs and didn't get into any because he had only applied to the top five schools in the country. Anyone who is applying on that level knows it can largely be a gamble because there are lots of people who have similar credentials, and that it's wise to apply to some lower-ranked schools too just in case. Well that didn't occur to him because you know, he's so special. I can't say for sure that is totally rooted in his upbringing but I don't think having parents telling him he was a special snowflake helped. I kind-of felt bad for him at that point because it seemed like he was crippled by his parents. I am sure he had the stats to get into a program in his field, but was so accustomed to being able to rest on his laurels that he didn't allow himself the chance to succeed by maybe lowering his standards a bit.

I think we talked about intelligence on another thread, but I do think after a certain point, achievement rests on working hard, not natural ability. If you cannot apply yourself everyone is going to reach a point where they are stuck, whether it is just in terms of not wanting to put in the work or that things suddenly become "hard"/aren't coming easily to you anymore. Someone who is more dedicated but has less natural ability might achieve more simply because they are willing to put in the time and effort towards their goal. I can tell you that in med school, I really think what matters is just putting in the time and effort to study. At this level everyone is "smart". There is so much material that you cannot glide through it based on genius or prior undergraduate knowledge. It's not actually that hard to comprehend a lot of the time - it's the pace that is challenging. If you are not willing to put in the work, you will fall behind no matter how intelligent you are.

[Fargood]

I have two "average" kids and one freaky smart kid. There is a huge difference between in internal motivation between my respectfully average kids and my freaky smart kid.

I do think the term "gifted" is overused. Even my freaky smart kid I don't call "gifted" because, well, it sounds pretentious as fuck.

[yewchapel]

I am concerned for high-achieving homeschooled kids who do not have access to school counsellors or special educational support teams, because it can bring emotional problems too - especially if there's lots of parental pressure to achieve. I was a very high achiever at school and was in gifted&talented classes. However I also had (and still have) real issues with perfectionism, disordered eating, depression and anxiety because of all the pressure I felt to make my parents happy and fear of failure.

[latraviata]

Well my son was in the gifted program from 1st grade, he played HS football and then went on to play college ball. He finished 2 undergrad degrees and then he got his MS in Neurobiology. The main reason we had him tested was to get h out of a bussing program that would have put im in a bad and distant part of town. I don't think if I had homeschooled him that would have happened but you never know. He was way into the social aspect of high school as well. He was "normal" and scary smart. Public school suited him well. I may be proud of him but in reality he made his own success from an inner strength.

Well done! My sons were both in some sort of gifted program (this is the Netherlands and not so keen on the 'gifted')

Of course they are very intelligent and that is hardly something to be proud of. Using their brain/intelligence and exploring their potential, that is something to be very proud of and I am.

[bluelady]

Yes, as an educator, I can verify that the term "gifted" is overused. For a very interesting take on the concept of intelligence, I highly reccomend the work of Carol Dweck, especially her book, "Mindsets". Her descriptions of growth vs fixed mindsets and their impact on the ability to acquire knowledge is applicable to everyone.

There is no reason to believe that exceptionally bright students can't do well in a public school setting. However, parents do need to be advocates for their children and make sure that their child is being provided with challenging material. Sometimes there is a mistaken belief that very bright children need less instruction and intervention, when the opposite is actually true. In my experience, informed advocacy by parents has made the public school setting work for most children.

Yep. Another educator here. In my entire teaching career (7 years) I can honestly say that I have taught one child who I believe was gifted. One. Out of hundreds. There were many, many bright kids. Many above average kids. But only one that I would label gifted.

At the same time, this year, I'm teaching siblings Math in two different grades. These kids are undoubtedly bright kids. They do well and they catch on quick. But that's it. These siblings are absorbing what I am saying and are able to give it back to me. My gifted student was able to take what I said, analyse it and figure out different applications for it. Instead of just giving it back to me, she was figuring out her own ways to use it. That's where I see the difference between bright and gifted.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I find the US to be obsessed with the idea of "giftedness" "potential" "talent" and "natural ability," whether on the high or low end of the scale. It all seems so demoralizing to me, as if the dice were rolled before you were born and that's that, which is weird considering the other big theme is "but there's no class differences, really!"

I mean, even for college entrance there's not a regular entrance exam but rather an "aptitude test." People all seem to know their IQ. Etc. If you look up the history of the IQ test, it's pretty fascinating stuff.

Meanwhile in more concrete terms, I think a lot of people with kids in public school end up obsessed with giftedness because in a lot of underfunded school districts, reality is that the best services are set aside for the "gifted track." They get the most engaging lessons, the most resources, theme-based and student-directed learning, involved projects, nuanced assessment based on those projects, you name it. This is because supposedly they learn best this way, but really, I think "ordinary" kids and ALL kids would ALSO benefit from this involved learning and more resources. If they want to track, and have some classes moving faster than others, that's one thing, but even the class that isn't going "faster!" probably would do better with the detailed projects, careful assessments, and all of it.

So I'm not surprised that competition for the the "gifted" label among a certain slice of parents is fierce. Around me people will come right out and say that if their kids are not selected for the gifted program in the public school, they will "have no choice" but to pony up for private school.

Also because the competition is so fierce, kids with less pushy parents are at a disadvantage. This led to lawsuits even.

On top of all that, there's the popular perception that "gifted" kids act up because they're frustrated and bored, so that their misbehavior is often seen as a plus (or at least one of those "oh, list a fault? I'm too much of a perfectionist, I guess!" type "failings" people trot out at job interviews) once they've got the label attached. This is in stark contrast to what happens to other kids, particularly kids who may have been stuck with a "troublemaker" label early on due to a bad home situation.

Me, I was raised with the other extreme, which said everyone is average and average people can do great things, if only they apply themselves. Overall I think I prefer this (see my posts in the "Conservative Opinions" thread) but that too can be taken to an extreme - while I do think the safest plan is to assume everyone is average, sometimes it does become obvious that some people need modifications to the standard plan due to circumstances, and that should certainly be allowed to happen. But at ANY level, even then, I think effort is the main thing for progress.

I also do feel it's important for kids to fail at something early on. If school is just completely too easy, try a sport, anything, just so that kids can learn that they can fail and it's not the end of the world.

The worst lab partner I EVER had was a guy in graduate school who was the most extreme stress puppy I have ever seen, because he had gotten nothing but A's his ENTIRE school career, from kindergarten right up to our master's-level class. He was terrified that I would eff up his grade (needless to say the guy did not like team projects). He had ulcers. Just... wut? I remember failing some subjects (even with effort!) early in my school days, and being thrown into environments where I understood nothing, and while it was hard at the time I'm grateful for it.

[YPestis]

Was it Abigail that had the nearly-illiterate "gift child" with Oppositional Defiant disorder (common in kids with unstable home lives)?

Yeah, I think it was. It's a sad situation made more tragic by the ignorant mother. Regardless of whether your child is gifted, if they have behavior problems, that still needs to be dealt with.

I agree that sometimes the truly gifted or just plain smarties actually need more guidance simply because they don't fit into the curriculum. That's why sometimes it's better to homeschool just to get that "extra" attention. However, I detest the general misuse of the word "gifted" to describe every child who functions at the average level. At least we haven't worked "genius" into the vernacular like we have with 'gifted'.

I also think we overuse "smart" to describe individuals who simply have good work ethics. Hard work will get a person very far. That doesn't mean their intelligence level is above average. I think that's hard for parents to swallow. They see children's innate intelligence is a reflection on them. And yet, I would point out that parents have no control over what genes to pass onto their kids. They do, however, have control over the work ethic they teach their kids. To me, it says a lot more if a child achieves rather than having parents talk about their super smart geniuses who are so gifted in banana peeling.

I believe every child can make something of themselves but not because they are gifted or even smart. Most people fall into the average range---ahem, that's kind of the definition of average. I wonder if it's a cultural thing that we treat 'average' as a pejorative. There's no shame in being normal. In fact, I am proud of my achievements precisely because I am average. I actually had to work hard to get what I have today. If I spent my time thinking I was a genius, shouldn't I be ashamed I only achieved as much as these mere mortals?

[So Many Lies]

Hello YPestis my name is SML and I am....average. And I'm pretty cool with that! I believe we should stop telling kids randomly how talented they are and encourage them to "do their best" and follow their interests instead.

[Mouser]

I always thought "gifted" was what people called children they got to know because they liked them/they had interesting personalities/they birthed the child themselves.

Until you work with kids or have your own, maybe all children seem kind of dumb or uninteresting? And so when you finally get to know one and realize they're just little people with their own thoughts and feelings, you think maybe that child is a little more special than all the others.

[latraviata]

Perhaps, 'gifted' needs to be defined. According to Dutch standards it is above academic level. I don't know about the current USA standards.

But gifted as defined according to Dutch standards it could cause problems especially when not recognised.

I know that my sons were incredibly bored and slept through their Grammar School, they had to be challenged and their is no proper program within the Dutch schoolsystem. So something was created for them and it was more of the same instead of a new stimulant. We as parents felt we had a responsibility and offer them all kinds of intellectual stimuli, so a constant book supply, taking them to interesting and educative places, my late husband had an economy PhD and tought them basic economy because they both enjoyed it s much :roll: It was challenging for us because they were rather insatiable.

[Full enough quiver]

I have two girls, 14 and 12. 14 year old is perfectly average. She works her butt off and brings home c's. 12 year old is brilliant. She gets all a's without cracking a book. In our house we praise the effort, not the result. My younger daughters teacher was concerned that she wasn't being challenged, so now she has her in with her big sister's class for math, and during English, she helps in the special Ed room. This is good for everyone. My daughter learns patience and compassion, and has made friends with some of the kids with challenges, and is their biggest defender. The younger one helps the older one with schoolwork, and the older one helps the younger with her social skills. This reinforces the idea that there are different types of intelligence, and peer relationships are one area my older girl excels in. She is extremely emotionally intelligent. Gifted is just a label. Everyone is gifted in some ways, and not so much in other ways.

[flyaway]

Perhaps, 'gifted' needs to be defined. According to Dutch standards it is above academic level. I don't know about the current USA standards.

In the U.S. it varies from school system to school system, but in the system I'm familiar with, an IQ test is administered to kids who appear to potentially be gifted. A score of 128 (about top 3%) qualifies kids for gifted classes.

[AuntCloud]

My oldest is slightly-above-average ("The Bellwether", anyone?). Being her curious little toddler self and my first born after some reproductive challenges, I was fully fantasizing on the day when the "Totally Amazingly Gifted" label is officially stuck on her forehead.

Then came CloudLet #2... 3 months premature, a very late bloomer, who looked and behaved like an oversized fetus at the age where other kids were walking, talking and socializing. I've been warned about "autistic traits" and her being "on the low end of normal". But then again, no one was really sure if she's just an incredibly late bloomer and will eventually catch up. So I was in limbo for several years and my best-case scenario was having a typical child. Let other people have all the little prodigies, geniuses and hyper-gifted kids they want, I'll be very happy with a verbal, potty-trained one.

[Feberin]

Meanwhile in more concrete terms, I think a lot of people with kids in public school end up obsessed with giftedness because in a lot of underfunded school districts, reality is that the best services are set aside for the "gifted track." They get the most engaging lessons, the most resources, theme-based and student-directed learning, involved projects, nuanced assessment based on those projects, you name it. This is because supposedly they learn best this way, but really, I think "ordinary" kids and ALL kids would ALSO benefit from this involved learning and more resources. If they want to track, and have some classes moving faster than others, that's one thing, but even the class that isn't going "faster!" probably would do better with the detailed projects, careful assessments, and all of it.

My kids are young (nearly 3 and 8 months) but I hope that they will end up in the advanced classes in middle and high school because I've heard those classes get more resources then the standard classes. However I won't be one of those parents who is arguing with the school to get them into those classes. Right now I figure my almost three year old is probably a little behind particularly with fine motor skills and numbers. I wouldn't describe him to people as smart. However if he does something well like correctly identifying his letters then I will tell him that he's smart. I try to not to lay on the praise too thickly but feel that some verbal positive reinforcement needs to be offered and "wow aren't you average" doesn't have the same ring to it as telling him he's so smart. It just seems like the natural way to praise a child for knowing something correctly. Perhaps that's a sign of how overused it is in our culture. Also children develop their sense of who they are based on what they hear and will act accordingly. I want my son to believe he is smart so that he will enjoy learning new things. I also worry that if he doesn't identify himself as smart then he'll identify himself as stupid and not put in the effort to learn new things.

[mockingbird]

In the U.S. it varies from school system to school system, but in the system I'm familiar with, an IQ test is administered to kids who appear to potentially be gifted. A score of 128 (about top 3%) qualifies kids for gifted classes.

In my public school system the elementary program is done by IQ score. That program is total immersion - it's a separate class and you do everything with that class all through elementary school. I think starting in 4th or 5th grade it's done by grades/teacher signs off on a form. There is an honors math class early and then honors classes in pretty much everything in middle school now, I think. Some of the honors classes are just a faster pace and some are the next year's curriculum. In high school getting into honors and later AP is all based on grades/teacher approval. I think I took all honors/AP in my core subjects in high school. They REALLY push people taking these classes. At the same time it's really easy to be "kicked out" the next year if you don't make the grade so it's oddly competitive and not at the same time.

In my little elementary school we had a "gifted" program that just took the top third or so of the class. We did brain puzzles and things like that once a week. After I left, some parents made a big stink that their kids weren't being chosen and now everyone goes to "gifted". It was fun, but I don't think it was a huge help or anything. I know a lot of "gifted" people complain about being bored at school, but I just remember reading a lot and making up stories or drawing or something else when I finished early or didn't need to pay attention to the topic. I also thought the public school honors/AP classes were mostly right at my level. Part of why I switched out of the private school was that I was going to go to the public school for high school and my elementary school (K-8) didn't offer the pre-reqs to get into honors classes there (like to be on the honors math track I would have had to take Algebra in 8th grade and we didn't have that, but the public middle school did).

I do agree about the gifted classes sometimes getting the best resources. I do think the best teachers were chosen to teach AP and it was kind-of a privilege to be able to teach at that level. Also, I heard a lot from my friends not in honors/AP that all they did in a lot of classes was watch videos.

[August]

Gifted is a term applied to a very small segment of the population. It is rare. We are not suppose to have a classroom full of them in every school (as some schools will have a "gifted" class).

No, it's the term used the top roughly 5% of the population. That's not rare, it's 1 in 20. In some places it's even the top 10%. And, in certain schools you'll easily have a classroom's worth per grade, whether it's because of local employers or socioeconomics. You're confusing "genius" with "gifted".

[August]

However if he does something well like correctly identifying his letters then I will tell him that he's smart. I try to not to lay on the praise too thickly but feel that some verbal positive reinforcement needs to be offered and "wow aren't you average" doesn't have the same ring to it as telling him he's so smart

You should read this.

Consider this study, which she did variations on for years. Researchers give two groups of fifth graders easy tests. Group one is told they got the questions right because they are smart. Group two is told they got the questions right because they tried hard. Then they give the kids take a harder test, one designed to be far above their ability. Turns out the “smart†kids don’t like the test and don’t want to do more. The “effort†kids think they need to try harder and welcome the chance to try again. The researchers give them a third test, another easy one. The “smart†kids struggle, and perform worse than they did on the first test (which was equally easy). The “effort†kids outperform their first test, and outperform their “smart†peers.

http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/14/scien ... -says.html

And this

http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/gj.htm

It's not as toxic as telling them they're smart, but it's still something you want to think about. If one of my kids does something like correctly identifying a letter and I feel the need to comment I would say "hey, you recognised the X!" or "yeah, it makes the x sound, doesn't it?". They want you to be involved and interested and you show that more with a warm and enthusiastic tone of voice combined with a really relevant comment. Imagine you show your partner a new (whatever, craft, outfit, report) and they glance up and down again and say "that's great, honey". Or they glance up and down again and say "Is that that shirt you got last week/ your stitches are really tiny/why did you mention the GDP of Bolivia?".

[SquirrelySquirrel]

In our house we praise the effort, not the result.

This is what we do as well, though we do praise the result when it's her challenge words that she's put a ton of effort into learning (they have a spelling pre-test on Weds, and if they get an A+ they get 5 really difficult words for Friday, and they're extra credit) because it's the only thing she puts effort into.

My kiddo is in the "advanced" (I can't remember what they call it) first grade class and has been sailing through with A/A+ report cards. I don't think she's gifted and would never dream of calling her that. She's smart, sure, but most of it is innate. She doesn't work hard, aside from those spelling words, and I don't think she's bored either. I don't think she could handle anything tougher than what they're doing because she doesn't love the hard work. She can be quite the little quitter when things do easily go her way. So we do go a bit crazy with the praise when she works for something, and we do emphasize that it's the effort we are proud of. But when she comes home beaming with pride at her +5 extra credit points we can't just pooh-pooh it away.

I'm not sure exactly how to define "smart," but I don't think it's over-used. I think the average person can be smart.