I’ve never met a funny person who wasn’t smart. I’ve met a lot of dramatic people who were stupid. But I’ve never met a funny person who wasn’t smart. —Rob Lowe
Is it possible that one of the prerequisites for being smart is to be a bit anti-social?
Being smart, being that person in the room who can disassemble populist theories, or explain the trivialities of menu ingredients, or make jokes based on the periodic table of elements, does not always endear one to everyone else. What we claim to be a “war on intelligence” is actually an eons-old response that goes back at least as far as the ancient Greeks. Being the smart person in the room has a way of making everyone else in the room uncomfortable.
Actually, those with above-average intelligence are not especially comfortable with the room, either. We all had a good laugh when an article relating foul language with intelligence hit the Internet. The article has been shared thousands of times and has over a million views. Everyone for whom the word “fuck” is a standard part of their vocabulary pointed to the article as evidence that they might be smarter than they typically appear.
Closer inspection, however, which is the first response of those who really are intelligent, reveals that vocabulary is just one of multiple anti-social characteristics that are common among those who are smarter than the average bipedal beast. There are reasons that what might be considered normal society tries to keep its distance, both literally and metaphorically, from smart people.
Freaks By Any Other Name
Additional research has been published recently to show that those who are more academic and scholarly in both occupation and lifestyle hold different perspectives from the rest of society. They don’t see themselves with any nationalistic connection, but citizens of the world. The smartest among us exist on the fringes if not completely external to society. Misunderstandings flowing in both directions is inevitable.
One example of such misunderstanding is a pseudo-intellectual article by Michael Lind that refers to intellectuals as freaks. Lind blasts the “ivory tower” concept of professional thinkers and university academics as being totally out of touch with mainstream society. He decries, without actual supporting evidence, those superficial elements such as being both single and childless, living in a metropolitan area (because that’s where universities are found), having a world view rather than being nationalistic, and social isolation as “particularly stupid and lazy.” He even goes on to say:
Successful intellectuals get where they are by being good at taking tests and by going to good schools. It is only natural for them to generalize from their own highly atypical life experiences and propose that society would be better off if everyone went to college….
Again, Lind makes these accusations based solely on observational anecdotes rather than any genuine research, so one cannot attribute any validity to the statements. However, that his views are reflective of a larger part of society is, and should be, disturbing.
Don’t Get Around Much Any More
Another recent headline screamed, “Research suggests being lazy is a sign of high intelligence.” Slackers the world over are now sharing this article, which they’ve not read, in an effort to support their sedentary lifestyle. “Look Ma! I is smart!” seems to be the general response. At least this article comes equipped with something resembling research. The headline is horribly misleading, though.
What the study, published in the Journal of Health Psychology, actually shows is that “thinkers” are more sedentary than “non-thinkers.” Personally, I was rather offended that the article would equate one whose work does not require a lot of physical movement with being lazy. I think I work damn hard most days, but most of that effort comes with my butt firmly implanted in this office chair. The lack of movement is not lazy as much as it is practical.
Other flaws in the study include the rather unscientific way in which participants were separated between “thinkers” and “non-thinkers” and the inability to explain how activity levels between the two groups were identical on the weekends. Based on this study, the headline could have just as easily read, “Dumb people are easily bored.” Anyone who looks at this research as anything approaching conclusive is off their fucking rocker.
About That Cursing Problem
I can still hear my late mother admonishing me after I had dared to use the word “dang” in her presence. “Smart people don’t have to curse,” she said, “because they are intelligent enough to use more appropriate words.” In fact, I’m rather sure Mother would have argued with that article everyone has been sharing. Polite society doesn’t like language that is aggressive and sharp and potentially offensive. Cursing isn’t civil.
Of all the garbage running around, though, the research around the use of “taboo” words is rather solid. Here’s what they found:
[Multiple testing] formats produced positive correlations between COWAT fluency, animal fluency, and taboo word fluency, supporting the fluency-is-fluency hypothesis. In each study, a set of 10 taboo words accounted for 55–60% of all taboo word data. Expressives were generated at higher rates than slurs. There was little sex-related variability in taboo word generation, and, consistent with findings that do not show a sex difference in taboo lexicon size, no overall sex difference in taboo word generation was obtained. Taboo fluency was positively correlated with the Big Five personality traits neuroticism and openness and negatively correlated with agreeableness and conscientiousness.
The actual study is a pretty heavy read but what it shows is that both men and women curse equally and that, in addition to scoring higher in IQ tests, those with expressive vocabularies also tend to be neurotic as hell, argumentative (because they know this shit and you’re fucking wrong you fucking moron), and lacking in areas of social sensitivity. Sound like anyone you know?
For Extra Credit: You’re Messy and Don’t Sleep
While everyone focuses on the cursing aspect of the Business Insider article, there’s also reasonable mention of additional studies that show smart people have messy desks and fucked up sleeping patterns. I’m sure the researchers would want me to point out that there are positive benefits to having a clean desk as well, though, personally, I have absolutely no experience with that particular phenomenon. I swear my desk clutters itself in my sleep.
Here’s the thing: neither cursing nor desk conditions nor amount of physical movement actually makes a person smart. Some people are able to obtain and retain large amounts of information and make right-brained connections within those information groups that others are not capable of doing. The determining factor in whether one has that capability is biological. While studies may draw correlations between certain habits and activities among a percentage within a select study group, none of them prove that to be smart one has to curse or be sedate or sleep at odd times.
There are no shortcuts to being smart. One has to study. One’s left brain has to take in copious amounts of information so that one’s right brain can use that information to make connections that result in invention and problem solving and creativity. Without all the hard work and study, one is just as stupid as any other presidential candidate. There’s no substitute.
Now, get busy and do something with your day.
When Good Judgement Matters
Property may be destroyed and money may lose its purchasing power; but, character, health, knowledge and good judgement will always be in demand under all conditions. —Roger Babson
We don’t always exercise good judgement, and for many that’s okay, but for a few such errors are unforgivable
We all make errors in judgement; most are not terribly big and their impact does not extend beyond ourselves. No big deal, right? We learn our lesson and, more often than not, avoid making the same mistake again.
Other times, though, those errors in judgement are more critical. For a photographer, they most often come down to whether or not we take a specific shot. We don’t always have time to mull over the consequences or poll all the parties involved. You see something happening, something you know is significant, and you have to make a decision. Now. Without consultation. It is in those moments that character and good judgement matter.
While we can excuse ourselves, and each other, of momentary lapses in judgement, we expect more from our world’s leaders. In fact, good judgement and character are two of the most fundamental characteristics we typically demand of anyone holding public office. Being a leader inherently involves making decisions under pressure, using careful diplomacy and selecting just the right vocabulary without implying undue aggression. Without some manner of care and good judgement, we could easily find ourselves in conflicts we could easily lose.
Consider the kerfluffle currently surrounding the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Normally a very careful person, she is typically aware that any statement she makes publicly is likely to be dissected differently by everyone listening. Apparently, though, her personal opinions don’t always match her official statements. At least, that seems to be the case as she was recorded being critical of Chinese diplomats during their visit to Great Britain last year. The circumstances, a garden party at Buckingham Palace, in a light rain, were such that the queen quite likely was not aware that she was being recorded. When she agrees with a senior police officer that the behaviour of the Chinese toward British ambassador Barbara Woodward was rude, the whole world took notice. As small and unassuming a statement as it was, made in what was assumed to be a private conversation, the result could have long-term detrimental effect on UK-Chinese relations.
That’s not the only matter of judgement that has blown up in the face of our British friends of late. Just prior to an international summit in London on political corruption in government, Prime Minister David Cameron was heard telling Queen Elizabeth that two countries attending the summit, Nigeria and Afghanistan, are “possibly the two most corrupt countries in the world.” Never mind that the Prime Minister’s statement was correct. In Transparency International’s 2015 corruption perception index, Afghanistan lists near the bottom at 167, ahead of only Somalia and North Korea, Nigeria was at 136. Yet, 10 Downing Street has spent the time since attempting to walk back the statement and one can imagine that introductions at the summit this morning were likely quite tense.
Every decision we make reflects upon who we are as a person and our judgement reveals the truth of our character. Can we be trusted to tell the truth when it matters? Will we make the correct decision in a critical situation? Those matters of judgement are important when what one does has the potential to affect millions of people. One needn’t even be an elected official for those moments of critical thinking have to be precise and correct.
For example, counterfeiting of luxury fashion brands is a global problem costing billions of dollars. Battling the problem has proven challenging as the ability to crack down on pirates in Asian countries, especially China, has been difficult. So, when Washington, D. C.-based International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition admitted Chinese Internet super company Alibaba to the group last month, more than a few companies were upset. Both Gucci and Michael Kors have left the coalition, and others may follow. Why? Many of those same companies are suing Alibaba in federal court for “knowingly encouraging and profiting from the sale of counterfeit goods on its e-commerce platforms,” according to the Associated Press. Admitting Alibaba was a judgement call by the IACC that may ultimately affect the price of luxury goods around the world if that decision proves to impede a solution to counterfeiting.
Then, there’s the case of Fox News White House correspondent Ed Henry. Apparently Mr. Henry uses Twitter’s direct messaging feature to chat back and forth with his followers. One of those followers happened to be a stripper in Las Vegas. After several exchanges, she invited Mr. Henry to visit her at the club where she works. He did. So far, no harm, no foul, assuming Mr. Henry was being honest with his wife. A lot of married guys go to strip clubs. But then, the two took the relationship further into a full-blown affair that lasted over a year. Then, both InTouch and the National Enquirer got a hold of the story. Still, in the grand scheme of things, it’s a private matter for Mr. Henry to address with his family, no?
Apparently not. Ed’s boss, Fox News chief Roger Ailes told the Washington Post, “This raises serious questions about Ed’s lack of judgement, especially given his position as a journalist.” As much as I often dislike Mr. Ailes, he understands the true gravity of the situation. In his position as a White House correspondent, Mr. Henry has to make quite and critical decisions as to which stories are important and which are not. He influences the information and perspective of news delivered to millions of people. If his judgement is lacking anywhere then one has to question whether he is making similar mistakes on the job.
As I said at the beginning, for the millions of us who are not public servants, who are not responsible for dispensing critical information, whose actions are not likely to affect global markets, our errors in judgement affect very few people and very few people have any reason to care. When those errors are committed by someone who holds an element of public trust, however, no matter what it may be, those judgement calls become extremely important.
We are looking at one of the nastiest presidential elections ever this year. When we consider the judgement of the two leading participants in that race, we have every reason to be worried. One has been married three times, and on at least one of those occasions was nothing short of cruel in dispatching his wife. Another has played light and loose with classified information and implemented policies and procedures that, at the very least, challenged foreign relations and, possibly, might have contributed to the endangerment of American lives abroad.
Good judgement matters. Even the head of Fox News knows good judgement matters. Do we really want to elect a president whose judgements have repeatedly been grossly and dangerously flawed? Don’t we deserve better?
You know we do.
Share this:
Like this: