Intelligence and Ignorance, and the Ponderings of the Two

I've been told, it seems, to shorten up on my posts, and of course there's only one way to respond to that :]

This is a rather meaty topic, and I'm anxious to get my teeth into it, shed some light and shred some dark (lolpun). I've often found myself considering others at varying levels of stupidity and intelligence, and the same applies to the self. But what is curious is that the labels attached to any particular person never necessarily have to remain so. Someone initially considered a bit dim on one occasion may on an entirely seperate occasion seem prodigal. Some may argue that this is because people can learn new things and generally become more intelligent. But why then, I challenge, does the reverse also occur? Someone who may seem universally intelligent acting rather stupidly doesn't make any sense, unless you allow for some sort of loss of knowledge, which I'm omitting for now because I don't particularly feel like getting into the whole ethical black hole of memory loss and other psychological damages which may contribute to one losing knowledge. That, I feel, is an entirely different issue, which I may or may not look into later.

Now what is most curious is what people tend to think of themselves in terms of intelligence. What I feel drawn to pointing out is that people classically think themselves smarter than they actually are, and that explains why someone apparently smart acts stupidly; because the initial outlook of intellect was in fact misguided. But then, I hear you cry, surely if the initial interpretation can be wrong, as proven by the latter interpretation, then in turn the latter interpretation can be wrong. This, I feel, is becoming rather entangled in itself, so let's start again in a more rigid manner.

Intelligence and Ignorance; As Interpreted by the Self
What people think of themselves, I tend to find, is near enough always wrong. Many a time have I seen someone prance around with a veil of 'attitude' and 'apathy' only for them to time and time again prove this not to be so. What is gloriously ironic, and, to the cynical, rather amusing, is that even when they disprove their own self-thoughts, they remain blissfully unaware, and shall continue the charade until they die. This is the outlook I usually hold on arrogance, hence my tendency to not really like it, despite the limitless barrels of dry humour it can supply. It can apply to absolutely anyone, and, as mentioned, even when pointed out to them, they will likely think; "Glad I'm not like that, hur hur, better go do someone intimidating, because I think I'm intimidating. Grr, grr, woof". Getting back to the topic at hand; aspects of this can be extrapolated and pulled across to intelligence. Someone may accomplish something, and think themselves the shiniest fork in the drawer, regardless of actuality. Similarly, they may do something which, in retrospect, was rather dumb, and the impose of themselves a certain lack of self-confidence with the thought that "I must be rather dumb". This is where one of the first mental hurdles I'm eager to verbalise comes into play; What exactly is intelligence? What can be accomplished that can ascertain any measurable degree of intellect? A classical, and refreshingly literal, answer is one's intelligence quotient. But I've always naturally been rather unimpressed by the system to which such things are measured. Some of the questions on IQ tests strike me as irrelevant, and it eventually became clear to me on my first try at one of them that the designers had a different perception of what exactly intelligence is to me. I'm quite solidly confident that a person of below average IQ is equally capable of intelligent acts as one of a higher IQ, thus rendering any attempt to assign a numerical value to intellect utterly pointless, and, in turn, invalidating any comparison of two individuals. To complicate matters further; I believe there are a number of different ways in which one can be "intelligent". One person may be able to logically work through mathematical equations with flawless accuracy in a limited time, but be clueless as to what colours clash and match. In the same way, an inspirational author can be just as intelligent as Einstein, who I've been led to believe struggled with the written word. How does this apply specifically to how people perceive their own intelligence, though? Well, I think that people are on some level aware of this at all times. Everyone is quietly confident of at least one thing they consider themselves "smart" at, even if they cannot demonstrate it, or indeed if they want to (in spite of how much they may deny it with their claims of; "I can't do anythinnnnng", I feel drawn to mention in a preemptive strike at any objections potential readers may have). In the same way, they are aware that they are not as smart in other areas. The distinction between the different types of intelligence is clear, but I oppose anyone who claims to have mapped them all. There are some levels into our own minds I don't believe it is possible to delve, and no amount of evidence should ever really be able to shunt that thought.

Intelligence and Ignorance; As Interpreted by Others
It is both a painful misfortune and powerful blessing that mankind is able to instill opinions of others into their minds. We can assign roles to those around us; Friend, Foe, Leader, Fool. This allows us to form our society, but also causes us to set about destroying it. We can recognise the abilities and downfalls of another, and therefore comprehend that they have a different role to us, and also how our role affects them. We are even complex enough, when we haven't just woken up, aren't about to go to sleep and are in one of the rare moments when we're not submerging our brains with alcohol, to comprehend how the system of a society functions through a series of individuals of varying talents and downfalls, and how they all compliment each other to various ways. However, we are nothing if not bizarre in our workings, and at the same time as this fantastic omniscience, we persist in forming prejudices of others drawn through a lack of understanding. A thought passes, as I write, that perhaps we have evolved to think at such a speed that we are forming conclusions on others far too fast without a complete set of information on which to base them, leading to the rather illogical racial intolerances. Just a musing, that occured to me, and as I look back on it rather unlikely, but a nice way to portray our standing as a race on the situation in a part-way poetic fashion. I assure you, I am reaching a point here. What I am trying to say, since I've danced around it so much (still at it, see? :]), is that we can never really know everything about another person. Not only is it notoriously difficult to get all the relevant information, it's impossible to put into any sort of organised form. Not only that, but we ourselves cannot be sure of anything very much, as the risk is always there that what you think is smart, is actually so stupid you're too stupid to realise it's stupid. I secretly wish the world is like this, actually, and that when we die we get to see all the answers, and can laugh at the foolishness of the living. That seems rather... odd, so I shall move on once again I feel.

Self-Analysis; Intelligence and Ignorance
As the entireity of this post has been detailing why it's impossible to know whether you are intelligent yourself, and also impossible to know whether someone else is intelligent, I meet the problem of trying to analyse one's own intellect with some lack of enthusiasm. Clearly I am not adequately capable of deciding to what degree my own intellect is at, and neither is anyone else on the planet. The fact that all forms of numerical measurement of intellect are fundamentally flawed by their very nature in my eyes doesn't lend aid either, so it's quite possible that this task is doomed to fail. Nevertheless, I shall attempt it nevertheless, partly out of principle, partly because I don't like being referred to as boyo, and therefore need to get the word count to something more titanic than it is at this moment in time :] With that in mind; here goes.

There have been numerous occasions where I have considered myself a complete and utter fool; and others where I've taken some sort of intellectual high-ground (ableit keeping rather quiet about it). I cringe slightly at saying that however, as it seems rather big headed. It would be to some aid if there were some sort of yardstick to compare against, but the only plausible option for such a thing would be to compare all aspects of me with that of another person, and that just borders on obsessively trying to prove oneself to someone else and that would simply be fingernails down the chalkboard of my very soul by the sheer intensity of the arrogance involved. The post seems to have come full circle, as I am once again struck by the problem of a distinct lack of direct definition of intelligence. Also; I suspect any attempt to try and point out what I think my strengths and weaknesses to be would ultimately be quite futile. Some sort of guideline at least would be useful, where no particular activity would be used as a reference, through which arrogance can be derived. With all this in mind, I feel as if I'm writhing around to accomplish the task of self-evaluation of intelligence without saying what I think I'm good at. A solution suggests itself, in that if I were to cut straight to the end of what I hope to achieve through self-evaluation and work backwards to find a more convenient route to the conclusion which does not involve such a crude method. For the purposes of clarity; I mean by that that I wish to improve faults in myself through regular sessions of self-analysis. To do that, I need to correct faults. To do that I need to identify faults, hence the stage of self-analysis. Perhaps I have lost sight of that for this post because clearly to identify faults it is not strictly speaking necessary to point out one's strengths. It may help, true, but can be avoided if convenience demands in the way it does. To that end; I shall attempt to identify in what areas of my life I am stupidest.

Maths, after a long day of revision on the topic, is the first one fresh in my mind. I struggle to keep the relevant thoughts in my head long enough for them to be useful. It is rather tiresome, actually, as maths should really be the one subject which can simply be worked out straight from the exam, but I find more and more that if I cannot remember the specific mathematical rule involved in a question, then I cannot simple "work out" the question. To that end, perhaps I am just not proficent in remembering rules of numbers. This particular flaw does not concern me a great deal, however, as I believe my command of numeracy to be at least good enough to get me by, and I see no goal to which I am aiming where it would be useful to further my understanding of maths any further than that which I am already revising for the final upcoming exam.

Systems and Control and Engineering are next in my mind as my major drawbacks, but it is not my intention to simply pick my worst school topics and whine about not being better at them than I am, because that seems rather typical of a teenager and clearly now, just before the exams of such subjects is not an oppurtune moment to stop and think; "Golly, not really very good at them". Ironically enough, this leads me onto French, which whilst also a school subject, if I expand it to become "Foreign Languages" it seems much more all-encompassing and relevant. I am painfully aware that the world is becoming more involved with the rest of its occupants, and a proficiency in a foreign language is become a valued commodity as a results of this. Perhaps that's not strictly true, though, in my head, as what worries me more isn't merely not being the elite of the workforce pickings, but being the lesser of them. By that I mean more and more people are gaining further qualifications in languages, and I am not amongst them, pushing me down on the ladder of good selections of jobs and universities. That is a major concern for me, but I hope I have remedied it to some extent with my French revision and Latin course, although I am quite aware that my knowledge of the language(s) will fade over time, leaving merely a qualification I cannot back up, so whilst I am patching over this fault academically, it remains a hole in my intellect.

Moving away from academic matters, I find my long-standing fault of lack social standing, or, somewhat oddly, understanding, slowly fixing itself. It remains however, a rather notable error in my intellect, as evidenced time and time again, but I feel I can understand people a little better than I could before. Obviously there are some matters I still feel rather foolish about, and I still find myself making mistakes and struggling to understand how I could possibly done better, but nevertheless, progress cannot be made without setbacks and lessons learnt. However, I still express doubt I will ever really master this particular Moby Dick of a problem. The moment I think I have certain things cornered, they turn out to be completely different. When I think I have a decision made, circumstances change, change back, reverse, or revert to their original state. Perhaps I simply don't have a mind to understand these things, or perhaps where other people are involved it is impossible to ever really know what someone else is thinking. I'm skeptical of this, as some people can be irritatingly predictable in all matters, but it remains the only really plausible explanation. I refuse to accept it however, as if the goal of understanding the matter is taken off of the horizon, I shall surely not continue as fervently as I have in recent times. Perhaps the confusion will subside in time. I doubt it, but perhaps.