That's a tough question. What makes intellectual superiority? I get a little better than average results in tests, but I like to think I'm very smart in ways that tests don't necessarily measure well. I've only had one relationship, which I'm still in now, and I'd say we're about equally clever.
Although if we talk only in terms of academic intelligence she's smarter than I am, and I'm sure she would say she is smarter than I am too. If there's one thing that frustrates me about her is her tendency to write me off as a nice, kind person and not a smart person, as if the two are mutually exclusive (I think the opposite; a complete and rounded kind of intelligence most often goes with being a good person). Most people I know are guilty of this misconception of me though. God, I'm becoming such a teenage stereotype, complaining about how the world doesn't understand me!
I could rant for a while more about the nature of tests as a way to measure actual intelligence (and the subject of defining intelligence) because I have a lot to say, but I'm really not in the mood for it right now.
Back on topic: no, I wouldn't say I have. I think I'd be able to have a relationship with someone smarter than me, but of course I can't know that until it happens :P
This is a relevant post I made quite a while ago, it sums up my thoughts on the matter (rather well, in my incredibly humble opinion):
"Grades are only a measure of a student's ability to function within a particular set of rules. I suppose you could call that intelligence, but doing well in the standard educational system is something I would call a skill. It is a skill to be able to provide what is asked of you. It is a skill to be able to relay information from one source to another - and if you think about it, this is all you're doing in almost every aspect of a typical school. When a teacher calls on you, you're asked to simply vocalize a memorized piece of information. On a test, you are transferring facts from a textbook to bubbles on a paper. On an essay, you are transferring ideas from one document to the next and putting your name on it. One COULD write an essay with a unique expansion on certain ideas, but not only is that rare - it's unnecessary for fulfilling our functional expectations.
There's no need to internalize or explicate any of the ideas presented to you in school - you need only prove that you've heard these things and are capable of writing them on a piece of paper or saying them out loud before they slip out of your mind. Contrary to popular belief, school is not exactly about learning, it's about function. It's about being prepared for the structure of society. That's why things like art, music, philosophy, theater, physical education, etc are sidelined as extracurricular or nonexistent, because that's what they are in society! Those things don't provide a successfully functioning person.
I think that may be why we become obsessed with people who ARE successful in these fields - singers, actors, sports stars. Celebrities. Not doctors, engineers, or historians. Maybe they're fascinating to us because they represent something outside of typical function. Think about it - why DO they earn so much money and fame? Because they're entertaining? I think they're famous because they successfully operate outside of typical societal functionality."
Have you ever been in a relationship with someone....
← View full post
That's a tough question. What makes intellectual superiority? I get a little better than average results in tests, but I like to think I'm very smart in ways that tests don't necessarily measure well. I've only had one relationship, which I'm still in now, and I'd say we're about equally clever.
Although if we talk only in terms of academic intelligence she's smarter than I am, and I'm sure she would say she is smarter than I am too. If there's one thing that frustrates me about her is her tendency to write me off as a nice, kind person and not a smart person, as if the two are mutually exclusive (I think the opposite; a complete and rounded kind of intelligence most often goes with being a good person). Most people I know are guilty of this misconception of me though. God, I'm becoming such a teenage stereotype, complaining about how the world doesn't understand me!
I could rant for a while more about the nature of tests as a way to measure actual intelligence (and the subject of defining intelligence) because I have a lot to say, but I'm really not in the mood for it right now.
Back on topic: no, I wouldn't say I have. I think I'd be able to have a relationship with someone smarter than me, but of course I can't know that until it happens :P
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This is a relevant post I made quite a while ago, it sums up my thoughts on the matter (rather well, in my incredibly humble opinion):
"Grades are only a measure of a student's ability to function within a particular set of rules. I suppose you could call that intelligence, but doing well in the standard educational system is something I would call a skill. It is a skill to be able to provide what is asked of you. It is a skill to be able to relay information from one source to another - and if you think about it, this is all you're doing in almost every aspect of a typical school. When a teacher calls on you, you're asked to simply vocalize a memorized piece of information. On a test, you are transferring facts from a textbook to bubbles on a paper. On an essay, you are transferring ideas from one document to the next and putting your name on it. One COULD write an essay with a unique expansion on certain ideas, but not only is that rare - it's unnecessary for fulfilling our functional expectations.
There's no need to internalize or explicate any of the ideas presented to you in school - you need only prove that you've heard these things and are capable of writing them on a piece of paper or saying them out loud before they slip out of your mind. Contrary to popular belief, school is not exactly about learning, it's about function. It's about being prepared for the structure of society. That's why things like art, music, philosophy, theater, physical education, etc are sidelined as extracurricular or nonexistent, because that's what they are in society! Those things don't provide a successfully functioning person.
I think that may be why we become obsessed with people who ARE successful in these fields - singers, actors, sports stars. Celebrities. Not doctors, engineers, or historians. Maybe they're fascinating to us because they represent something outside of typical function. Think about it - why DO they earn so much money and fame? Because they're entertaining? I think they're famous because they successfully operate outside of typical societal functionality."