It seems like an obvious question.
If you are technically minded, you may have a preferred definition of intelligence. ‘The ability to solve problems’ seems to be on the right track, until you remember that 20 lines of Python can solve problems.
Maybe you could call it the ability to solve new problems. It takes a lot more code to do something that can be adapted.
But is intelligence really the same as agility?
Maybe, maybe not.
But here’s where it gets interesting:
You might think that intelligence is something we can all agree on. Even if it’s a case where you know it when you see it, smart people are smart, no questions asked.
Except that’s not entirely the case.
What it means to be ‘smart’ varies from culture to culture.
And I think you can tell a lot about a society by how you define it.
Consider:
Love him or hate him, Elon Musk is undeniably smart… by our standards.
But there are many standards that would condemn him and his pitiful brainpower.
A common example that appears in history, from medieval China to imperialist Britain and certain religious sects, is that ‘intelligence’ has to do with discipline, obedience and memorization.
These social systems would not only resent your creativity and rebelliousness, but would see it as a sign of weak-minded character.
Our genius, his jerk, all because he doesn’t adhere to his model of a smart person.
Many societies saw conformity as genius. We in the modern West tend to praise entrepreneurial people: bold, innovative disruptors. Take someone who can memorize textbooks and please their teachers, but not think for themselves, and what would most people say about them?
“Sure, they get good test scores… but they’re not exactly smart.”
Something to ponder.
And something else to ponder is, what exactly is my point?
Is it a condemnation of the school system, with its emphasis on standardized testing, rote learning, and an atmosphere that kills creativity?
Maybe I’m subtly debunking the ‘we used to be smarter’ myth. You know, people take a 19th century test meant for 12-year-olds, give it to adults today, and watch them fail. “LOL we are so dumb now.” Until you realize those same kids would fail any modern test (and not just the recent history part). Those old-school tests were entirely (not just mostly) rote learning, often something nonsensical like obscure grammar rules. Something you could learn in a tedious day of study, should the need ever arise. But it would take years to bring one of those old-time students up to speed on our subjects.
Maybe it’s a message of hope.
If people call you/you a fool for scoring low on tests, now you know a different way to interpret that.
Many people will tell you that the tests do not measure intelligence well.
I could be here to tell you that they are a measure of an interpretation of intelligence.
It would defeat the purpose, in a wicked blaze of irony, if I were to say that one and only one of these interpretations is correct.
But this is what I was thinking while writing this:
Almost everything you think is objective is actually subjective. Smart and dumb, good and bad, hero and victim: all are open to renegotiation.
And that’s great news! We no longer see genocide and slavery as right, even though older societies obviously considered them noble.
The barriers in your life are mostly smoke and mirrors, it’s just lucky to break these.
So if you’re too old, too ugly, too dumb, too inexperienced, or too poor to build the life you want…
You’re wrong.
At least, you’re using the wrong standards.
Your labels are just fiction, so stop believing them anytime you want.