Posted in Philosophy of Education on Dec 04, 2009 - 09:42 PM
So, before I say anything, disclaimer: this is opinion. I have not read psychology texts on intelligence, and do not know how it is currently defined by the American government. This is my own study and analysis.I believe that intelligence is three things: thoughtfulness, education, and experience. It is possible to be very strong in one category and be very intelligent because of that strength, but have room for improvement and further intellectual growth in another. I believe that I have a great deal of thoughtfulness, but could seriously grow in terms of experience and education by attending more events and programs and spending more time reading nonfiction and participating in events and movements. Part of my motivation for joining IDEA was to further my own education and experience.
What are these things? In my definition, thoughtfulness is the practice of thinking of things that you have done, will do, or are doing. There is rarely a waking moment where I am not thinking of something. At night, I walk about and pace, think of lectures I've heard, things I've read, conversations I've had, jokes I might tell, and mottos I've seen and what they mean. A life unthought of is not worth living, and by thought alone, you can grow in leaps and bounds. This is a good place to state another personal belief: I do not believe in overthinking. I believe there is a such thing as unproductive thought, and the difference between this and what people call overthinking is NOT semantic.
So long as you continue to think of relevant, possible factors with regards to something, and think of it from different angles instead of obsessing and coming to the same conclusions on something, your thought is productive and worthwhile, regardless of the time you spend thinking about it. Perhaps you will lose the chance to act with the time you spend thinking, but thinking in and of itself will never have no benefits if you pursue it with relevance and consideration.
The next part to intelligence, in my mind, is education. It's learning from things. It's taking classes, having mentors, listening to lectures, reading books. Education is something that is supposed to test your mind and make you learn something new. You do not necessarily have to be involved in it. For example, I educated myself about capitalism and free market structure. I went and read a book on it. I educated myself on game theory. Education gives you new concepts and angles at looking at things in the world, and furthers your ability to use old ones.
The difference between education and experience is somewhat arbitrary. Experiences, to me, differ because of accessibility. I can go get a book on something at my leisure, but a chance to actually participate in it is more rare. Going dancing is an experience. Playing guitar is an experience. Attending a conference is an experience. It's something that is potent, significant, and comes by rarely, and in turn will bring your mind to its peak -- or should.
There will be times where you do all three, or more than one, at once. Guitar for me is one of those. I go to lessons to educate myself, and then I play guitar for the experience. Both further me intellectually.
I think this is important, because I believe that these are quantifiable enough that you can teach intelligence. I believe there are methods that could be employed to educate people: through reading, lectures, demonstration. Learning styles are important here. I believe there are experiences that people can go on that will further them intellectually.
The reason it's important to think about how to teach intelligence is because intelligence, when abundant and put in positions of power, effects real change and allows people to avoid common pitfalls that are found on the way to making things better. It also allows people to be free from misguidance -- intelligence allows you to process things and separate fact from fiction. Today, politics and marketing campaigns made a profession out of presenting fiction and calling it fact. These are things that we, as people, need to be savvy enough to recognize and work with.
This has been my private definition and thoughts for quite some time, and I'd like to know what you all think of it. Comments are encouraged, as are questions.
Tags for this entry:
questioning,
critical thinking and analysis,
self-directed learning,
autonomy,
reading,
intelligence
comments
very interesting. i wonder if you’ve read this article:
http://www.downes.ca/post/38502
it talks about the things we really need to learn/educate ourselves about in order to avail ourselves of the kind of learning/intelligence gathering you are talking about…
in addition to learning styles, and raw intelligence as measured on i.q., the concept of “multiple intelligences” - many ways to be intelligent is also relevant.
where melanie mentions street smarts, i wonder if that could also be identified as “interpersonal intelligence” in some cases. also, i bet many people have deep intrapersonal intelligence (knowledge of self) that does not benefit in any way, really, from conferences, classes, or even, so much, experience.
thanks for discussing this!
on Dec 06, 2009 - 02:12 AM
I think a lot about what defines intelligence, too. It bothers me that people tend to conceptualize “smart” as knowing a lot of facts and being able to recall them quickly. I have friends who never thought of themselves as smart because they weren’t well read or didn’t have what Alfie Kohn calls a “bunch ‘o facts” in their heads. But they had a lot of practical knowledge (how to fix a car, whip up gourmet meals, or navigate with a compass in the middle of the woods). If there were some crisis and we all went into survival mode, you better believe that the academics are going to run to the folks with street smarts.
Emotional intelligence is one of the things that employers most look for. Are you socially skilled? Do you sense how people are feeling and know the appropriate thing to say to them? Can you get along with people different from you and diffuse conflict? People who are intuitive don’t always get credit for being “smart,” but it really takes interpersonal intelligence (as lylawolf mentioned) to know how to build relationships.
on Dec 08, 2009 - 01:38 PM
This is a thoughtful conceptulization of intelligence. I am glad you came to this definition without reading a lot first about intelligence, because I think it offers a fresh approach. In “the books” intelligence is often defined by IQ tests, and something that people are either thought to have or lack- not something people can be taught or learn.
I also like the way you identify different sources of intelligence- I think this leads in to a discussion of learning styles- some people seem to rely more on one source than another depending on their style- for instance, may do a lot of experiential learning but never go to college, and develop a lot of intelligence based on those experiences. I also think different kinds of intelligence are valued more or less than others based upon one’s social setting.
I think intelligence, like you talk about it, is often referred to as “smarts” (street smarts, book smarts) or “knowledge”... and “intelligence” is treated more as a static ability to learn, with the idea that some people are just uncapable of learning. But I’ve worked with many people in social services who are tested as having very low IQ but have lots of “street smarts” or other kinds of survival knowledge.
I prefer your definition to the classic.
on Dec 05, 2009 - 03:34 PM