I've got lots of friends who are academics, but it's often mistaken for intelligence, even by themselves. People tend to think that if you know a lot about something, or if you're an academic, then you're intelligent. But really, you just have a good memory, or you have a keen interest in a certain subject, or you worked hard.
Real intelligence has little to do with any of these.
One of my best friends is very much not an academic. He didn't do well at school and didn't continue his education after the compulsory age. And yet he's one of the most intelligent people I know.
If you're not aware of the difference, that can sound very confusing. How can somebody who did badly at school be intelligent and how can somebody with a PhD not be intelligent?
Well, it's often said that there are 7 types of intelligence (or whatever number you want to pluck out of the air). And to some extent, this is true. There are many ways in which you can excel, and they all require the power of your brain. One of those types of intelligence is academia.
But, for me, real intelligence is much more than that. It's the ability to think, really think. To think about everything, and to do it consciously. And to analyse and reason your thoughts.
Just doing well at school doesn't always require real intelligence. I know a lot of people who did well at school purely through hard work.
A key indicator of real intelligence is the ability to analyse yourself, to think about what you've done, or what you always do, and to reason whether it's right, or whether you should change this aspect about yourself, or do it differently in the future.
This type of intelligence is very rare.
My truly intelligent friends help me to be a better person, by questioning the things I do, and the way I do it, in exactly the same way that they question themselves. And I value them more for it.
Some of them are academics, some are not. There is absolutely no correlation between how well you did at school, and how intelligent you really are.
But why is understanding this difference important?
Several of my academic friends have come to the conclusion that they are intelligent, just because they are academic. They have degrees, PhDs or even post doctorates and so they assume that their thoughts and conclusions are therefore more likely to be correct than somebody less academic. It's not that they are being big headed, it's just a natural thing to assume if you've gone through various levels of academia with a lot of success. Some of these friends tend to assume that their first conclusion on a subject is right so they start to argue their reasoning for it. They close themselves off to the possibility of being wrong until you have absolutely and categorically proved it to them. And even then, sometimes they won't change their minds.
Again, it's not about being big headed or arrogant. They are just used to being right a lot of the time and not really having to think about it very much. They get into the habit of not thinking very much and so whatever conclusion comes into their head first, they assume is correct.
They don't analyse and reason their thoughts before deciding whether they are correct or not. In short, they are not really thinking. They are just doing exactly the same thing as the sort of people that everybody would agree are unintelligent and letting their thoughts just happen and agreeing with the first thing that they think of.
This is very dangerous. Being academic cannot save you from your stupidity. In a lot of respects, this is more dangerous for the academics. A lot of non academics are aware of their stupidity, or believe they are stupid even if they are not. So they can compensate, they can ask others for their opinions because they do not value their own so highly.
But if you assume that those same thoughts are correct just because you are an academic and you've had those thoughts, you have nothing to protect you from them.
My problem now is how do I explain to people how to be really intelligent. Because I don't really see any evidence that it cannot be learned or taught. I don't have any magic wand or piece of advice that will instantly make you start thinking and analysing instead of letting thoughts happen to you. All I can do is persuade you to start thinking more. Start analysing your beliefs. Start listening to others beliefs without prejudice, even those you assumed were worthless.
Never assume that your first conclusion is the right one. No matter how convincing it seems, analyse it. And use the scientific method. Don't just look for reasons to back up your opinion, look for those reasons against it. It might convince you of another, correct opinion. Or at least, it will allow you to reason your argument and come up with arguments to defeat those put against it by others.
And even when you have decided on your opinion and are in the full flow of an argument, you should be prepared to admit defeat if you really need to. Sometimes it takes that argument for all of the reasons to come out.
I once saw a (really) intelligent friend arguing his case quite vigorously in a work meeting and this went on for about half an hour. His case was very convincing and it seemed that the other person had just assumed his opinion was correct because it was the first one he'd thought of. My friend was knocking down the arguments one after the other. Then someone came up with a comment and my friend stopped for a moment. Thought about it briefly, and realised the impact of this comment. Then he said with a smile on his face, "Why did nobody mention this earlier?"
Basically, nobody had thought of it earlier, it was only because all of the other arguments had been completely destroyed that this argument revealed itself, and proved to be the deciding argument. My friend graciously admitted that his opinion had been incorrect and I believe that most of the people at the meeting realised that the meeting had been valuable for getting to this very comment.
My friend showed his superior intelligence because he had come across all of the arguments that other people were coming to in his own head beforehand, and had reasoned towards another opinion. He had analysed his thoughts, changed his opinions accordingly and then justified them to the rest of the team in a compelling manner. And it was only because of that discussion, that the most compelling argument was even unearthed (that nobody had thought of earlier) and the best course of action was taken. His argument had encouraged others to think.
