PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

What is Intelligence and who is Intelligent?...

It may be more important to ask, “Who is stupid?” — since that’s often more obvious. At one time or another we may be tempted to suggest, “everyone else” since we often assume ourselves to be pretty smart.

In contemporary political discourse, if you’re on the left, you assume that Trump and his supporters are “stupid.” If you’re on the right, you can likely assume the opposite. In some instances the labels are appropriate. There are certainly stupid people all over the place. Intelligent people...maybe not so much.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that one can be anywhere on the political spectrum and be either intelligent or flat out brain-dead. When directing anger at one’s opponents it’s easy to simply call them stupid. I’ve certainly done it. I’m going to keep on doing it. I’ve been called stupid several times on YouTube comment threads. My favorite followup that these clowns use is, “Do your research and study history” (I majored in history in college - with honors). When people call someone “stupid, it’s really kind of the equivalent of calling them an “asshole.” The problem is that some people really believe that those who hold a different view from their own are truly mentally deficient. Ironically, it’s probably stupid to think this🤪

So, politics somewhat aside, what is intelligence? Several decades ago, the theory of “multiple intelligences” was popularized by Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner. The theory was seen as relatively profound by some but intelligent people saw his appraisal as merely obvious. Of course there are different styles of interacting with the world and therefore expressing intelligence. Even the ancient system of astrology observes a difference between people who appraise the big picture and form intuitive assessments of the world around them and others who micro-focus their attention on particulars and find clues to life’s mysteries in the details. Not every intelligent person can ace an SAT test. Not every scientist can write great poetry or complex and inspiring music. Albert Einstein had supposedly spoke of the virtues of socialism. While he has become synonymous with the word genius I have yet to hear anyone effectively argue that great knowledge in the narrow field of physics defaults to equally great insight regarding how countries should manage their affairs. Most people accept the idea that Adolph Hitler was likely pretty smart. In addition to his obsessive political interests, he possessed a developed curiosity toward the arts and specifically Wagner’s Ring Cycle. I would hope that decent people wouldn’t argue that his knowledge of the architectural layout of the Paris Opera House transferred to “insights” regarding “race” and political organization.

A lot of intelligent insight simply stems from the ability to call out the obvious when most people are wedded to what they’ve been told. In 1912, Alfred Wegener noted the obvious puzzle-like outline of the continents and suggested that they may actually have drifted to their current locations, something any child might suppose. He was ridiculed for decades by scientists too narrow in their thinking to see what was obvious to children. To some degree, intelligence affiliates with independent thought. Anyone can be reasonably smart and agree with those around them, but that’s not where new vaccines and innovative art comes from.

Somewhere in the equation as to what constitutes intellect one has to acknowledge what the brain is actually doing. Duplicating a language or a symphony in one’s brain certainly enriches the neural connections that afford complex thought. Symbolically, on a simple level, one could probably say that a computer is “smarter” when its filled with data or a library’s collection of books is “smarter” than an ice cream shop. Amounts of information and its adaptability in interacting with an outer environment is a clear factor in manifesting intelligence. I’d go so far as to suggest the following definition of intelligence:

The degree to which one is able to and desires to interact with the environment. (“The environment” including everything from books and music to those we converse with).

A lack of intelligence is, by its nature, notably passive. In the weak-minded, the desire or ability to interact and engage with the environment is limited and specifically self-limited.

Writing and even understanding music requires some intelligence. You have to be pretty smart to even write bad orchestral music. Relativists among us would insist that the latest pop tune is every bit as profound and “intelligent” as Bach’s B-minor Mass but depth is often an attribute of intelligence and pop genres, while entertaining, can seldom be seen as tackling the depths of human thought and feeling.

One could care little for classical music but be quite intelligent but you still need to be fairly smart to navigate through a symphony. To be sure, there are some skilled poets in the world of Hip Hop and occasionally even pop. But...having copies of several symphonies in one’s neural network is surly beneficial for the operation of thoughts and contemplations in general. If one can add to a complex piece of music with a knowledge of its historical context and how it’s constructed, all the better.

I had once briefly lived in a small town in Kentucky. There were plenty of people there who today might be caricatured as “Trump voters.” I dare say that many if them were smart. Some were really smart. Many didn’t share my interest in classical music or art history but, they understood a cars engine enough to be able to fix one when it was broken. My knowledge of Hudson River School landscapes wouldn’t have been very useful in car repair. I’m quite sure that many in the rural countryside can use reasoned judgement regarding who would best serve as president, in spite of what the talking headless on CNN may think.

It’s become fairly common in venues like CNN to hear commentators and guests imply their own great understanding while belittling anyone who may appraise things differently. They just don’t seem to get the idea that, in a free society, establishing arbitrary standards regarding intelligence is not a requirement for electing leaders. Certainly some common sense and a rudimentary understanding of economics, history, and human nature goes a long way in making wise choices. But, again, think how many people possess all of these insights and still make stupid decisions in their daily lives as well as on election day.

A recent news article noted the “most educated” and “least educated” states in America. Of course the criterion was whether or not one had gone to college and what degree they obtained. It’s certainly reasonable to guess that a person with a masters degree is “more educated” than a person who lacks even a high school diploma but, nowadays, what exactly does a masters degree confer? I can relay from personal observation that one can have a masters in “education” and be intellectually on par with a a local farmer (actually, the farmer is likely to have the mental edge in many cases). There are a host of degrees that now require little if anything in the way of intellectual stamina. Anyone can whine about “oppression,” “racism,” and the evil history of our capitalist bogeyman. Write a few papers essentially demonstrating that you agree with your Marxist professor and you can get your grade. “Defending” one’s thesis among academics who agree with you is an easy task. In a free society, such accomplishment will appropriately earn you a career in making cappuccinos at a local coffee shop. The local plumber, on the other hand, can at least fix your toilet, and be paid well for it. Seeing through bullshit takes a type of intelligence. Ironically, seeing through bullshit is not a common attribute among many in the intelligentsia. Likewise, few of them seem to be able to realize that many people can see through their bullshit - easily.

It’s an old standard among the left to assume that those holding conservative views are automatically less intelligent. George Bush, a former fighter pilot, was often criticized as being “incurious.” Obama, a president who held the approved beliefs of leftland, was often seen as a wise scholar, yet he couldn’t even fathom the simple formula of lowering taxes and deregulating an economy back from relative stasis.

Being an intellectual does not necessarily equate to being intelligent. There are plenty of not-so-smart people who wish to see themselves among the elect. They often do so with effective name-dropping and an ability to mimmic what they’ve heard. When debating leftists, I’ve often come across those I refer to as “Wiki-geniuses” people who pose as knowledgable experts on a given topic after having just read a Wikipedia article on it. These are the clowns who tell opponents to “do the research” as if reading a couple online articles is “research.”

It’s clear to me that stupidity and intelligence are distributed fairly evenly on the political spectrum. And, how do we consider those who simply have no interest in political issues? I’ve met some very intelligent people who have no interest at all in the political intrigue de' jour. Politicos are often infuriated at non-participants. A valid argument can be made in the wise phrase, “you may not be interested in politics but politics is interested in you.” But some people just don’t care about the latest outrage du jour — so. It’s always been the case that many voters base their choices on trivial concepts like physical appearance, speaking ability, or the influence of biased media and entertainment sources. I wish it wasn’t so, but intellectually oriented people need to be aware that irresponsible voting is not synonymous with lack of intelligence.

I remember, in college Ed School having to justify my support for the traditional concept of “cultural literacy.” It’s now standard amongst the neo-Marxist clowns who dominate education theory to insist that “facts and information” are meaningless and horridly tainted by a “linear” Western worldview. One reading we were assigned mocked the idea of knowing that the Nile was the world’s longest river. To them, this was just an unnecessary fact. I would still reply by asking if it is a good thing to not know the world’s longest river. With each new fact and static piece of information we assimilate a larger web of insight and creative capacity. The human brain is fractal-like. A group of neurons hold a “fact.” Before you know it, they’re making connections to other networks of thought and the sum is a gestalt of consciousness — and intelligence.

“Knowing things” is not only useful. It affords a scaffolding upon which connections and analogies occur and allow for the development of more refined and complex patterns of thought. Developing a vocabulary or expertise in an isolated area of inquiry ultimately feeds higher levels of thought.

Intelligence and knowledge are valuable things worthy of admiration and cultivation but one shouldn’t just assume that every opposing view is somehow lacking legitimate perspective...that would be stupid.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 10:22 AM