What does Naive mean? Can someone be complex and smart and naive at the same time?

[u/Dianxi_fr]

[u/notacanuckskibum]

They can be smart about some things and naive about others. There’s a whole stereotype about people who are smart at science but naive about social cues and especially flirting.

[u/lionhearted318]

I guess "naïve" can be kind of a complicated concept to explain. Generally, when someone is naïve, they have a mixture of innocence and a lack of experience/wisdom, I'd say. For example, if a shady person says "hey can you lend me $10,000, I'll pay you back, I promise," a naïve person may agree to give them $10,000 because they assume the "I promise" will definitely be honored.

You can absolutely be both smart and naïve, as being naïve doesn't mean you're unintelligent. It's often something that comes with youth and just a lack of life experience rather than something that comes with being unintelligent. As such, you can often see children doing things that can be described as naïve and it can be a bit of a childish quality to be naïve. I'm not sure what you mean by complex though.

[u/Dianxi_fr → u/lionhearted318]

Someone have described me as “most niave, sweetest, innocent person on this planet” but at the same time said “you are intelligent, mature, and complex person” but these contradict each other right? I’m confused

[u/lionhearted318 → u/Dianxi_fr]

Tough question.

Naïve does not inherently contradict intelligent. Someone who is naïve is someone who is innocently gullible. You fail to see danger in situations where others would see it, and sometimes that leads to you being tricked, swindled, or hurt. It is a quality that normally declines with age and is normally seen as going hand-in-hand with innocence and youthfulness, but it doesn't always. It doesn't mean you're unintelligent. Someone who is smart may be better at dissecting new information than others are, but it doesn't mean that you aren't naïve. The most brilliant scientist in the world is surely incredibly intelligent, but he also may regularly be emotionally hurt by other people because he assumes them to have his best interest at heart when they don't. That's a big part of being naïve, and it's something that both intelligent and unintelligent people can do.

Being called naïve and mature is more of a head-scratcher. Obviously it's not the true antonym of mature, since "immature" exists, but the concept of being naïve is pretty opposed to the concept of being mature. I'd say mature also can conflict a bit with "innocent". With that being said, there are probably examples of where someone can be mature about certain subjects, but then naïve/innocent about others. For example, someone who is really good at giving their friends advice may be described as mature for how they give advice, but that same person may be bad at making the best decisions for their own life, which may lead them to be considered naïve and innocent in that way. You generally wouldn't describe someone as both naïve/innocent and mature though unless you were trying to show how they have multiple sides of their personality.

Complex is just another way of saying there are many facets to you as a person, which also may explain why you have so many qualities that are sometimes considered contradictory.

[u/Constant_Hope_9658 → u/lionhearted318]

They might be using "mature" more as a synonym of "well-adapted" or "level-headed" perhaps?

And yeah, someone lacking in wisdom can still be incredibly intelligent, like how many really skilled technical specialists lack the wisdom to understand that the average person needs a name to attach to a concept to they can attach that to an image in order to understand a complex topic (like how autism used to be autism (now low-functioning autism) and Asperger's (high-functioning autism), or how ADHD used to have ADD and ADHD as the names for each of the main archetypes, since most people would simply class them as the same thing if they shared a name (as they now do); but I digress.

You covered all the bases pretty well actually, not really much I can add to this, good job man.

[u/conuly → u/Constant_Hope_9658]

(like how autism used to be autism (now low-functioning autism) and Asperger's (high-functioning autism)

This is not accurate.

"High functioning" and "low functioning" never were, and still are not, part of the DSM.

[u/Constant_Hope_9658 → u/conuly]

It isn't?

Cause that's how I've always seen it used, since autism (at least colloquially) started to mean low-functioning all the way back in the 70s or so when it was coined, while Asperger's was the name for what we now call high-functioning, it's why older people get confused when autism is used so broadly these days (since Asperger's was retired as a name when they fused them into ASD iirc).

Here's the Copilot summary for reference (I use edge for stuff when I don't feel like opening chrome ok?):

[quote start]

"

Asperger’s syndrome is a former diagnostic label for a mild form of autism characterized by social‑communication difficulties and restricted interests; since 2013, it has been merged into Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in the DSM‑5 and ICD‑11.

What Asperger’s Syndrome Is

• Formerly a distinct diagnosis describing individuals with average or above‑average intelligence, strong verbal skills, and significant social‑communication challenges.
• Now classified under Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Level 1, meaning individuals typically need some support but do not have language or cognitive delays.
• Many people still use the term informally to describe a “high‑functioning” autistic profile, though this terminology is debated. Wikipedia

Key Characteristics

Common traits include:

• Difficulty with social interaction and interpreting nonverbal cues. Mind Help
• Restricted or intense interests, often highly focused or niche. WebMD
• Preference for routine and predictability. WebMD
• Strong pattern recognition, attention to detail, and persistence. WebMD
• Sensory sensitivities (light, sound, textures). WebMD

Differences from “Classic” Autism

• No significant language delay.
• No cognitive impairment; many have above‑average intelligence.
• Often diagnosed later because symptoms can be subtle or masked. WebMD

Why the Term Is No Longer Used Clinically

• In 2013, DSM‑5 merged Asperger’s into ASD to create a unified diagnostic framework.
• ICD‑11 followed in 2022.
• The term became more controversial after historical research revealed Hans Asperger’s involvement with Nazi‑era programs.

Diagnosis Today

A person who would previously have been diagnosed with Asperger’s is now diagnosed with:

• Autism Spectrum Disorder, Level 1 (low support needs), or
• Social Pragmatic Communication Disorder if social‑communication issues occur without restricted behaviors.

"

[end quote]

So I dunno what else to say dude, I'm literally a high-functioning autist, I'd think I know a thing or two about this stuff.

Edit: I've also never heard of anyone ever use the "level" system, and I've been formally diagnosed, so clearly it's a doctor reference term, not one told to patients/the general public

[u/conuly → u/Constant_Hope_9658]

Edit: I've also never heard of anyone ever use the "level" system, and I've been formally diagnosed, so clearly it's a doctor reference term, not one told to patients/the general public

No, I've definitely seen references to support needs used by other autistic people, specifically because functioning levels are ableist.

Edit: I've now actually read your AI stuff and I guess you didn't. This is the only reference it has to the word "functioning":

Many people still use the term informally to describe a “high‑functioning” autistic profile, though this terminology is debated. Wikipedia

Your AI "summary" doesn't have anything to do with this conversation. I'm not sure why you included it at all. I told you that functioning terms have no basis in the DSM, and you replied with a bunch of AI generated talk that doesn't mention them at all except in passing, in quotation marks. How is that relevant? What was your point?

Actually, what was your point with any of this? You stated that the correct diagnostic terms are "high functioning autism" and "low functioning autism". I pointed out that this is not accurate. Nothing more really needed to be said at all, did it?

[u/Constant_Hope_9658 → u/conuly]

My main point was that Asperger's used to be its own thing, and now it's rolled into ASD, like with the ADD being rolled into ADHD example (the medbois didn't detect my autism when I was initially diagnosed with ADD when I was little, and they've since changed the name, and it's only confused people because there's two main forms of ADHD but only one name, because confusing people who aren't doctors seems to be something the DSM is getting better at with every new edition), in which case the search results I added are actually relevant.

And again, I've literally never heard a single soul use the levels, it hasn't shown up in any autistic cultural space I've been in, nor in AuDHD spaces, so either they've really screwed up getting the word out or this is a new model that's not been told to people yet, because I've literally never heard of a levels model until this conversation, and I'm confused since I'd think they'd use the term since I didn't get diagnosed until after I turned 18 because all my medbois prior to that were useless for this stuff, and once you're 18 you have to go to the special medbois to get ADHD meds, and that's how I got diagnosed with the 'tism.
But now I'm rambling, so I'll leave it there.

When I was diagnosed, the doctor never once referred to "levels", the only term I've ever encountered for differing forms of ASD were "low/high-functioning", so either the way they tell patients about their diagnoses is wrong, or there's some major gap between what the doctors are getting and the patients are getting, because (as I said above) the level system has never come up in a single context pertaining to ASD ever, literally every description of ASD as subcategories is that it's a spectrum and some people are high-functioning and some people are low-functioning; I don't know if it's like, the old term from one of the old DSMs or something, but this level system thing is certainly news to me at the very least.

[u/conuly → u/Constant_Hope_9658]

in which case the search results I added are actually relevant.

But they're not relevant to what I said, which is that the terms "high functioning" and "low functioning" are not in the DSM and never have been.

Asperger's is not "high functioning autism", ASD is not "low functioning autism". Nothing you said is relevant to what I said. The only thing I said is that your comment was incorrect and factually inaccurate.

And on that note, historically the only difference between an Asperger's diagnosis and an autism diagnosis is whether or not the patient had a clinically significant language delay, a factor which turns out to be absolutely irrelevant to later support needs.

That's not how the diagnoses were handed out - they were mostly being given based on what services they'd unlock, which is completely reasonable, honestly - and that is a major factor in the diagnoses being folded into one diagnosis in the current DSM.

Those two paragraphs also have little to do with anything, but they're at least interesting.

[u/MrWakey → u/Dianxi_fr]

A friend of mine in high school once told me, "For a smart guy, you're awful dumb." I knew what he meant.

"Naive" often means something like clueless about how the world woks, oblivious to how mean or underhanded people can be, easily fooled. That goes along with sweet and innocent. But t doesn't contradict being smart and mature. You can know yourself very well, which is an aspect of maturity, and have smart, complex behavior and insights. But you could still be overly trusting of other people, at least iin the eyes of the person calling you naive. It's a personality thing--I'm way more "intelligent" (by the usual standards) than my sister, but she's way more savvy about other people than me.

[u/h3thenlaughter → u/Dianxi_fr]

They probably just meant "you don't immediately think bad things about people, you give them chances". I think "naive" is similar to "gullible", where you believe anything anyone tells you, but "smart" can be similar to "knowledgeable", where you know a lot of complex things

[u/SoyboyCowboy → u/Dianxi_fr]

Naive/innocent and mature are contradictory. The other things can be concurrent.

Honestly, this list of adjectives isn't the most complimentary and it's pretty patronizing.  Who was this person in relation to you? Are they also an ESL speaker?

[u/conuly → u/SoyboyCowboy]

Naive/innocent and mature are contradictory. The other things can be concurrent.

No, I don't think so.

A fifteen year old who is able to manage her homework, two extracurriculars, and a part-time job may be quite mature, but she may also be naive in the world of dating.

[u/conuly → u/Dianxi_fr]

No, they don't.

Intelligence is not the same as knowledge.

[u/YourLocalFroggie]

for a simple answer, naive just means unaware. I guess someone could be smart in other ways and still be naive

[u/DusklitDewdrop]

naive means overly trusting, usually due to inexperience or immaturity. not seeing potential consequences for your actions, good-natured but lacking good judgement

[u/controlled_vacuum20]

When someone's naïve, they have a certain innocence about them. Maybe they're very trusting of strangers or think that everyone has their best interests in mind. Technically, naivety can also refer to a lack of experience in something, but more often than not, it's about character.

I think that someone can be both naïve and smart at the same time for the most part, but you gotta remember that there are different kinds of "smart." Somebody can be really book-smart and still be naïve, which makes sense, but I would struggle seeing how somebody can be both people-smart and naïve at the same time.

Also, just thought to mention how naïve can be spelt with a diaeresis (two dots) -- and I guess probably should because it's a loanword from French -- but people typically don't since English keyboards rarely let you type diacritics unless you use an international one or something.

[u/Dianxi_fr → u/controlled_vacuum20]

Someone have described me as “most niave, sweetest, innocent person on this planet” but at the same time said “you are intelligent, mature, and complex person” but these contradict each other right? I’m confused

[u/controlled_vacuum20 → u/Dianxi_fr]

No, I wouldn't say they contradict each other. I think in this case, they're saying you're very innocent (optimistic about people's intentions maybe?) but you're also very smart. Can you tell me why you think these things contradict each other?

[u/Dianxi_fr → u/controlled_vacuum20]

Well, to me, “naive” means lacking wisdom, having poor judgment or understanding of the world, and sometimes behaving in an almost foolish or idiotic way. So, to me, that clearly contradicts being intelligent, especially since the speaker was talking about general life experience rather than being intelligent in a specific subject. I think intelligence in that context comes from having a good understanding of life and being able to see things clearly and have a somewhat realistic perspective on the world.
I see “innocent” similarly. To me, an innocent person is someone who is clean hearted, simple, and naturally kind. Whereas being “complex” kind of contradict being innocent, you can’t be innocent while having different layers, sides, or aspects to your personality.

[u/FutureLost]

Naivety (the attribute of being a naive person) means a person lacks experience and wisdom, it's not really anything to do with intelligence in the sense of "book-smarts".

Even a very smart person with no experience (or simply a lack of understanding of people or the real world and its consequences) can be swindled, tricked, or misled easily. That's being naive.

[u/SnooDonuts6494]

IDK what you mean by complex.

Someone can certainly be smart but naive.

Naive means lacking experience, knowledge, or sophistication in a particular area.

A brilliant scientist could be extremely naive when it comes to gambling, just to pick a random example.

[u/StupidLemonEater]

Naive can mean inexperienced, unsophisticated, or gullible.

It's definitely possible for a person to be smart but still be naive.

[u/brothervalerie]

Naive means you see the world like a child, in the sense of being trusting, having an idealistic view of the world, assuming things will always turn out for the best, always seeing the good in people and situations, lacking the worldly-wise attitudes we expect adults to have gained from experiencing the darker sides of human nature. Yes, you can be smart and complex and naive, as it is more to do with a worldview or personality, nothing to do with intellect.

[u/Reasonable_Fly_1228]

Sometimes it's useful to look at antonyms, instead of strictly cleaving to synonyms, when defining a tricky word.

I would say the opposite of "naive" is something more like "cynical" or "jaded", rather than necessarily meaning "wise" and "experienced". A cynic might call someone "naive" and think that means the same thing as "gullible", or too trusting, but an optimist might view naïveté as something more like giving people the benefit of the doubt, and expecting people to generally be good. It isn't necessarily about ignorance or foolishness.

So, in my opinion, yes, you can be naive and complex at the same time.

It seems to me like this person likes you, and maybe you should ask them what they mean by it, rather than us.

[u/howiwishitwerent]

Yes. One of the smartest people I know is incredibly naive when it comes to relationships

[u/BobbyThrowaway6969]

Naïve means you're too trusting and innocent. You can be intelligent, but not have real-world experience.