Intelligence is stupid and I hate it
i know im being annoying but you can always just leave
I know, I hear myself but whatever—the implications matter.
People like to remark on my perceived intelligence in a complimentary fashion.
I do not like this.
Some situations are more grating than others. For example, when meeting a man in a romantic situation for the first time, it is common that they mention how ‘smart’ I am and how much they ‘like’ that about me. This, on a good day, is a pesky annoyance that I ignore. This, on a bad day, drives me up the wall as: (1) it feels patronizing—as if my thoughts and ideas are parlor tricks rather than something to contend with, (2) it angers me to think that somehow my intelligence is a reflection of them (their character, tastes, discernment, etc.) and (3) it implies that the other women in their lives are not intelligent and I know this to be untrue. Therefore, it follows that by uttering this statement, the man in which I so dreadfully want to be attracted to, becomes untrustworthy in his skills of discernment and all proceeding compliments wane in credibility. (yes, i know i’m crazy; whatever! If you want to come over and kick me for it, text me for my address and pull up! I will make you a cup of coffee after as thanks.)
The point is / the points are
The point is: I know the women in these men’s lives are ‘intelligent’ and ‘smart’ in the way they mean but they are, for some reason, unable to recognize it as ‘intelligence.’ Kneejerk, we can conclude that the men are demonstrating misogyny. And, sure, while this is not an incorrect conclusion, it is certainly an incomplete one as the entire framework and metrics for which ‘intelligence’ are conceived of and we are disciplined into are patriarchal, dominationist epistemologies. We can observe these epistemologies at work with how the “hard” sciences (STEM) are privileged in a hierarchy that withholds and denies value to the “soft” sciences and humanities (not STEM). We see the disparity socially in the form of prestige conferred and withheld, and we see the disparity materially in the form of salaries and access to resources. And this is why it is not only A Misogyny but an indictment on the concept of ‘intelligence’ period.
When people praise me for Being A Smart, here are the behaviors that they are often remarking upon:
Me use big words they don’t know
Me reference Concept (with assumed Importance or Prestige) they haven’t read about
Me reference Person (with assumed Importance or Prestige) they haven’t read from
Me talking Fast
Me talking fancy (delivery, elocution)
Me talking fancy (form, syntax)
Me talking more than other people
Me talking louder than other people
Me talking (ostensibly) confidently
When people praise me for Being A Smart, they are often praising rhetorical flourishes rather than content (which makes me feel like a well-seasoned, thoroughly fraudulent Sophist.)—because if they were compelled by the actual content of my speech, we would be having a conversation. The behaviors of my alleged ‘intelligence’ are often regurgitated factoids, relayed information, and approximately 15 years of theater experience shining through.
And that is not what ‘intelligence’ is supposed to be. Intelligence is supposed to be the application and use of knowledge–not the regurgitation of information in a rhetorically fanciful delivery. However, I write this not to say, we must redeem intelligence, and resurrect its true meaning! Instead, I want you to throw it out completely.
Give me a definition of intelligence
Give me a definition of intelligence and its corresponding metrics that have not been used as a cudgel for systems of oppression.
Historically, the concept of intelligence as A Thing that is Real has been used to justify the project of civilization, empire, white supremacy, etc. Contemporaneously, the concept of intelligence as A Thing that is Real is used as a means of categorizing people to then justify unequal distribution of resources and deny/obstruct access. To me, the most politically dangerous implication of ‘intelligence’ as A Thing that is Real is eugenics. With ‘intelligence’ applied as some standard reference point in which to measure people and place them on a hierarchy of humanity, deservingness, and inherent value—this is the foundational justification for the eugenicist project.
To summarize thus far: In addition to my wariness of receiving compliments around My Mental Aptitude, I am deeply troubled by what it represents conceptually and how it manifests literally: a judgement over access to resources with life or death consequences.
I have people in my life
I have people in my life who possess characteristics or have had life experiences others sometimes use as evidence of ‘unintelligence.’ I have family members that aren’t the most literate, friends who are dropouts, friends who flunked out, people who communicate in unconventional or difficult ways, people who think in ways I find, initially, bewildering. Loved ones who are bad at school and may have difficulty focusing. Friends who do not read in their free time. Parents with regressive political views. I am intimately aware of the fact that many would find my loved ones lesser for these facts, characteristics, behaviors, and beliefs, and I hate them for it.
I do not trust those who vest too much interest or value in me as a result of my perceived ‘intelligence’ because I fear they would think of my loved ones as lesser and deem them disposable.
I do not trust these people; they do not have my best interests at heart.
You see,
You see, intelligence is often held up as some paragon of something or another. Because someone is deemed ‘smart,’ they are then deemed responsible authorities and capable of assuming leadership roles. They are people with something to say. People worth listening to. Of course, the implication being, there are people with nothing to say and who are not worth listening to if they do not meet the concept of intelligence’s benchmarks.
Sometimes, I meet people who do not think they are smart (often, these are people who think I am smart. This is another time in which the label/‘compliment’ enrages me.) and as a result of this self-conception, are hesitant to ask questions or challenge the conclusions or logics put forth by others. On an individual scale within social interactions, this is terribly unfortunate. Regardless of their self-conception, these folks’ questions and ideas are worthy of consideration and incorporation.1 On a collective scale, this is a calamitous justification for unchecked power. In addition to wielding immense influence over creating, determining, and enforcing metrics of ‘intelligence,’ the powers that be will always use any justifications within their reach to discredit those who challenge them and delegitimize their criticisms.
Further, wielding claims of intelligence, and the accused lack thereof, is an effective means of getting people to shut up. There is so much stigma and shame around appearing stupid that the accusation is enough to make people scared to ask questions. Additionally, politically, accusations of stupidity and unknowing obfuscate rather than clarify, in that: sometimes, the demands we make have less to do with bureaucracy, laws, and processes and more to do with will.2 If we concern ourselves with primarily finding and acquiring information rather than building power to assert our demands, our focus and labor gets redirected accordingly. In thinking about university divestment, this comes up often: the university tells us The Thing Is Impossible when in actuality, The Thing Is Possible, it is just inconvenient and difficult. The Thing Is Impossible sends us on a wild goose chase to prove that The Thing Is Possible when the obstacle was never feasibility—the obstacle is political.
For organizing purposes, this can be problematic and demands rigorous self-awareness and self-criticism to remain cognizant of.
And more importantly,
And more importantly, the perceived primacy of intelligence as some exceptionally celebrated trait is whack and actually stupid, espousing a set of values and priorities that hold other characteristics as somehow less important, valuable, and crucial.
iN mY oPiNiOn, other traits are more important, valuable, and crucial (namely kindness, patience, generosity, creativity, and work ethic to name a few). However, instead, I propose holding these traits as complementary—each a tool among others in a toolbox, each necessary. Or maybe a metaphor of a symphony is more apt here? Regardless, I hope you’re picking up what I’m putting down.
AND I WANT TO HEAR THEM. SHARE THEM WITH ME. STOP BEING SELFISH!!!!!
In my life, I have found that things are, more often than generally imagined, a question of will.