Aisling Curtis | Senior Staff Writer
When somebody is called smart we immediately know what that means: an inherent attribute that is for some hopelessly unattainable, and for others a label they’ve been dogged with since their first childhood spelling bee. An attribute that is a slur in some circles and the greatest compliment in others, its very fabric replete with expectation to achieve in a certain academic way.
But shouldn’t we consider other manifestations of being smart?
Take, for example, somebody with a deep and encompassing knowledge of the Harry Potter world. Maybe they don’t get straight As in their Leaving, and maybe their vocabulary isn’t as extensive as they’d like, and maybe Kiev could just as easily be the garlic chicken as the capital of Ukraine – but they can tell you the intricacies of seven books, eight movies, and an exhaustive backdrop of details and tidbits and themes. Are they not just as intelligent as the traditional maths nerd?
Our notion of intelligence in Ireland is just that: ours. Not everybody’s. Which means we can allow it to change.
In 1967, the developmental psychologist Howard Gardner challenged the prevailing theories of the time by proposing a Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which argued that people process information in different ways – eight, to be precise. Instead of domination by one ability – a general intelligence that is the basis of modern IQ tests – he believed that intelligence could be divided into these different areas, all largely independent of each other, with individuals expressing a blend of types rather than a single manifestation.
It’s the kind of theory that appeals to us on a fundamental level, which is why we should be wary of it. And – perhaps unfortunately – the empirical evidence is not strong, relying heavily upon subjective judgement and a feeling of “rightness” rather than testable proof.
But critics don’t disagree with the notion that people can be smart in a range of ways, only with the methodology and the strictness of calling these traits “intelligences” when “intelligence” has generally been defined as the skills associated with school. On a rigid theoretical level, Gardner has been dismissed, but on a broader, more subjective plane the crux of his ideas carry weight. Although they may not manifest on a general intelligence test, musical, spatial, linguistic, interpersonal and intrapersonal abilities can bestow a greater operational smartness upon a person than any ability to classify shapes into patterned rows.
What’s more, even Gardner’s questionable intelligences can only be extrapolated to those of us who hail from the Western world. In other cultures, what’s considered ‘intelligent’ can be nothing like smartness here. In Zimbabwe, intelligence is being cautious, particularly in social relationships; in Zambia, it’s obedience and responsibility; Asian conceptions of intelligence include determination, and even feelings and opinions. Our notion of intelligence in Ireland is just that: ours. Not everybody’s. Which means we can allow it to change.
We place value on specific types of knowledge and certain skills, often for the lone reason that such skills are culturally esteemed.
Maybe it’s time to alter the traditional tune of “how smart are you?”, to reconsider assigning people to boxes based on their subjectively objective test scores. In a working world where career is no longer a rhythmic progression from promotion to stagnation to retirement, people move horizontally and vertically, backwards and forwards, between disparate jobs over their working lives. It has become “how are you smart?”, how can you demonstrate interpersonal capacity in a highly connected world, how can you find artistic solutions to more intricate questions, how can you help solve the complexities that loom over the modern world.
We place value on specific types of knowledge and certain skills, often for the lone reason that such skills are culturally esteemed. Is somebody who can learn a vast array of testable facts really more intelligent than somebody who can recall each celebrity couple of the last ten years, or somebody else who knows every up and down of the World Cup? A freer interpretation of intelligence would allow more potential, more diversity, a greater array of skills to the ones we’ve been taught to revere.
More smart people empowered by their own intelligence – no matter what strange, unexpected flavour of intelligence that might be – might even make the rest of us smarter, too.
Illustration by Eabha Feely for The University Times
