Fabio, you certainly like an argument, it seems. Why are you so concerned about this? It's obvious that if you learn incorrect things - for instance, that the Holocaust never happened - that you'll appear ignorant. So why bother to argue about that? But, for the most part, we people in first world countries can count on learning accurate information about science, history, languages, etc. Putting aside your argument that people don't learn correct information, which it seems you're having a hard time doing, a good memory will help you learn more easily and will probably help you reason more easily since you'll have a wealth of facts retained in your head that others may tend to forget. But it seems you just want to argue about what people learn, not whether a good memory is an important part of learning and intelligence, so you go right ahead. I give up.

>>Well, I'm a little unclear what you mean, but I think you're saying that if you have a great memory and you've learned incorrect things, then you "become less smart". How could I do anything but agree with that? But I am assuming that you learn correct things, not incorrect things.
>
>This is the point. This is not true.
>
>> All in all, you come out ahead when you have a great memory. If you are a historian and can remember large amounts of data you certainly will seem smart (and who's to say you're not), but a great memory doesn't mean you're a great deductive thinker (though, again, it probably helps greatly).