Jude Magnotti ’26
EE Co-Managing Editor
How do we measure the capacity for human intellect? Is it something we can place on a scale? Is it something we can measure with a finite, precise number? Or is something that can not be limited to such a constrained capture? Is it something we have very little awareness of and no feasible way to identify?
We can try to break down the minds of the greats, such as Einstein and Oppenheimer, assigning them one perfectly coded number that provides a summary of the entire beauty of their mind.
However, the truth is, nobody really knows what makes someone “smart,” nor do we really know how “smart” the most impactful people in history have been. The truth is, that the concept of human intelligence and the cognitive processes that guide us is something we know frighteningly little about.
Considering the mind is the very thing we use for every single thing in our lives, this is a rather disturbing revelation. After all, if we can’t even understand the inner connections of the most important body part on the planet, how will we be able to explain everything else we have to answer?
This has prompted psychologists and researchers alike to dive deep into the depths of what we know about ourselves, whether that is by introspective, biological, or sociological methods.
Because we can not fully understand the brain, we take shortcuts to more easily explain things in the short term. In the case of intelligence, we have developed a widely held prototype of what we consider to be “smart.” Nerd with glasses and a lab coat working in a science lab doing complex math equations, right? But what qualties make somebody smart? Do you have to wear glasses? Do you have to properly conduct the scientific method? Do you have to be able to perform a complex array of logic and math puzzles that the average person could not dream of figuring out?
Most people consider these things to be indicative of intelligence, and they would be right to a certain extent. Albert Einstein, Teddy Roosevelt, and Stephen Hawking did all three of these things with ease. But what happens when you find someone who can write 50 pages analyzing the cultural significance of hot dogs in America like a Nobel Laureate but can’t perform most basic algebra? Do we still consider this person smart? How can they be? They can’t understand basic math so how can we consider them smarter than those who can?
However, what intelligence tests and math teachers and colleges fail to take into account is the most important indicator of intelligence we have: Creativity.
Sure, knowing complex arithmetic may have helped some of the smartest people we know get where they are, but they would be nothing without their creativity. Would Stephen Hawking be who he was if he was not creative enough to propose a new theory explaining the universe? Would Oppenheimer be who he was if he had not had the idea to split the atom and build an atomic bomb?
For all their knowledge, all their skills, it was ultimately their creativity that set them apart from others, not their basic intellect. Similarly, we too often narrow and confine intelligence to just the practice of basic academic tasks. But in this case, we are disregarding all other forms of intelligence that are just as critical to life. If the traditional definition of intelligence is all that matters, then how come every single person who is “smart” is not equally as successful in careers and love? What about emotional intelligence? Street smarts? Highly fluid intelligence? In the same way we can not begin to understand the deepest workings of our mind, we can not begin to understand what traits of intellect are most important.
Would you sacrifice being able to talk to people and feel empathy just to think like Einstein? Would sacrifice your understanding of literature and stories in order to speak like Roosevelt? And would you sacrifice everything you have ever been just for a chance to be “smart”?
Many do, and many end up far lonelier than they ever were before. Oppenheimer died broken and guilty, knowing he had created something that could destroy the world. Alfred Nobel died grief-stricken from the deaths of the people he knew would be killed by dynamite.
In many cases, it is the smartest people who end up the most lonely because not only can no one begin to think the same way they do, but they have focused so much of their efforts into traditional intelligence that they forget the type of knowledge, which is the knowledge of the soul. We will always strive to understand as much about the world as we can, but no one can know everything, and when it comes down to it, creativity and empathy is more important than anything you will ever learn in math class.
I can’t do math. I can’t do science. I can’t begin to comprehend numbers and scientific terms the way others can. 75 or below is considered the IQ of someone intellectually disabled. According to my intelligence test, my IQ is 78. But I just wrote this entire article in 20 minutes with no sweat. So why don’t you go back, read it through once more, and you will see what is really dumb after all…
Photo courtesy: Pixabay.com Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal