Business World
Perhaps one of the most annoying developments, particularly in social media, are claims that “intelligence is the new sexy.” Or that the “sexiest organ is the brain.” Leading tragically to the creation of the term “sapiosexual”: supposedly some person attracted to intelligent creatures.
Which is just dumb if you ask me. (*And by having started to read this article, you’re therefore deemed to have asked me.)
Still, the matter does lead to certain questions, most pertinently: is it really intelligence people are after?
Because in our pluralistic everybody-goes-home-with-a-trophy world, it has come to pass that everyone can now consider themselves smart: psychologist Howard Gardner, for example, describes 9 types of intelligence, which he expands in his theory of multiple intelligence, positing that there are different modalities rather than intelligence as one overall ability. This, of course, has been criticized.
And even more criticized is the use of IQs to measure intelligence, which focuses on verbal and logical-mathematical abilities but apparently also discriminates (in a world where everything is also about identity) as to race and social class.
On the other hand, you have people who would not want intelligence measured in a standardized way (either because it’s supposedly racially discriminatory, paternalistic, etc.) and prefer equating ability with emotional intelligence or even just simple intuition and empathy.
Having said that, let’s stick to IQ as a measure of intelligence for the simple reason it’s offensive to progressive liberals.
Before going to the implications of such, note that intelligence (particularly at the national scale) does have some substantive consequences.
As I cited in my universally reviled 2012 article (on the Philippine’s national intelligence average rate), 2002’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations (by Lynn and Vanhanen) and 2011’s National IQ and National Productivity (by Garett Jones) both indicate a positively clear correlation between intelligence and economic performance. Which makes sense when one considers intelligence’s relationship with patience, cooperativeness, and productivity.
And, apparently, trust as well (see What Determines Trust? Human Capital vs Social Institutions; by Nye, Androuschak, Desierto, Jones, and Yudkevich; 2012).
Finally, there are also indications of intelligence’s reverse correlation with promiscuity, i.e., generally the higher the intelligence the less promiscuous (see the work of Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics).
Of course, someone out there would inevitably scream that correlation does not mean causation. But correlation still is an undeniably helpful (and interesting) way of looking at things.
Going back to IQ, on a general basis, the distribution of intelligence levels would normally look like this: 50% of the population would have IQ scores between 90 and 110, while 70% between 85 to 115.
The point: only around 15% of the population can be considered of above average intelligence, with 5% in that rarefied field of genius.
And yet, as Sherlock Holmes puts it (and there is no better authority on intelligence than him -- by which I mean the Jeremy Brett version or Hugh Laurie’s or Basil of Baker Street’s, not Cumberbatch’s, and definitely not the utterly abominable Downey, Jr. incarnation): “Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.”
So the next time somebody declares he/she finds intelligence sexy, the odds are that the appropriate response is: “how the heck would you know who’s intelligent?”
Because if Mr. Holmes is right (and he always is), 85% of the population couldn’t recognize true intelligence if it bought them a drink.
After all, nobody goes around in a bar with a Stanford-Binet test to be filled up.
In a recent article by Rachel Kramer Bussel (Is Smart the New Sexy?), she came upon a supposed sapiosexual who says this in all adorable honesty: “I don’t consciously try to assess people’s intelligence but I definitely do notice things like: How many of my jokes do they get? How fast do they respond when I ask them a question? What’s their vocabulary like? Are they comfortable talking about loftier subjects than interpersonal gossip and the weather? I think intelligence often goes hand-in-hand with humor, or at least the kind of humor I appreciate.”
But even the laziest analysis of that description shows, aside from it being very subjective, that what’s being asked for is not intelligence but flattery. Which simply requires empathy, interest in the other person, and lack of self-centeredness.
But not intelligence; any humanoid with a functioning brain sufficiently capable of powering his/her legs for autonomous motion surely can dish out flattery.
So, really, what’s actually sexy for a greater number of people is not intellect but the ability (and stomach) to profusely deliver believable compliments. Although, ironically, there is that general perception of talkativeness being a sign of low intelligence.
In any event, one does hardly find in any glossy magazine sexiest list quantum physicists or epistemologists. Yes, there are occasionally some genuinely brainy people there but the fact that they’re fit, good-looking, oftentimes rich, is certainly not coincidence.
Anyway, back to work …
Jemy Gatdula is the international law lecturer at the UA&P School of Law and Governance and Executive Director of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations.
Perhaps one of the most annoying developments, particularly in social media, are claims that “intelligence is the new sexy.” Or that the “sexiest organ is the brain.” Leading tragically to the creation of the term “sapiosexual”: supposedly some person attracted to intelligent creatures.
Which is just dumb if you ask me. (*And by having started to read this article, you’re therefore deemed to have asked me.)
Still, the matter does lead to certain questions, most pertinently: is it really intelligence people are after?
Because in our pluralistic everybody-goes-home-with-a-trophy world, it has come to pass that everyone can now consider themselves smart: psychologist Howard Gardner, for example, describes 9 types of intelligence, which he expands in his theory of multiple intelligence, positing that there are different modalities rather than intelligence as one overall ability. This, of course, has been criticized.
And even more criticized is the use of IQs to measure intelligence, which focuses on verbal and logical-mathematical abilities but apparently also discriminates (in a world where everything is also about identity) as to race and social class.
On the other hand, you have people who would not want intelligence measured in a standardized way (either because it’s supposedly racially discriminatory, paternalistic, etc.) and prefer equating ability with emotional intelligence or even just simple intuition and empathy.
Having said that, let’s stick to IQ as a measure of intelligence for the simple reason it’s offensive to progressive liberals.
Before going to the implications of such, note that intelligence (particularly at the national scale) does have some substantive consequences.
As I cited in my universally reviled 2012 article (on the Philippine’s national intelligence average rate), 2002’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations (by Lynn and Vanhanen) and 2011’s National IQ and National Productivity (by Garett Jones) both indicate a positively clear correlation between intelligence and economic performance. Which makes sense when one considers intelligence’s relationship with patience, cooperativeness, and productivity.
And, apparently, trust as well (see What Determines Trust? Human Capital vs Social Institutions; by Nye, Androuschak, Desierto, Jones, and Yudkevich; 2012).
Finally, there are also indications of intelligence’s reverse correlation with promiscuity, i.e., generally the higher the intelligence the less promiscuous (see the work of Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics).
Of course, someone out there would inevitably scream that correlation does not mean causation. But correlation still is an undeniably helpful (and interesting) way of looking at things.
Going back to IQ, on a general basis, the distribution of intelligence levels would normally look like this: 50% of the population would have IQ scores between 90 and 110, while 70% between 85 to 115.
The point: only around 15% of the population can be considered of above average intelligence, with 5% in that rarefied field of genius.
And yet, as Sherlock Holmes puts it (and there is no better authority on intelligence than him -- by which I mean the Jeremy Brett version or Hugh Laurie’s or Basil of Baker Street’s, not Cumberbatch’s, and definitely not the utterly abominable Downey, Jr. incarnation): “Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.”
So the next time somebody declares he/she finds intelligence sexy, the odds are that the appropriate response is: “how the heck would you know who’s intelligent?”
Because if Mr. Holmes is right (and he always is), 85% of the population couldn’t recognize true intelligence if it bought them a drink.
After all, nobody goes around in a bar with a Stanford-Binet test to be filled up.
In a recent article by Rachel Kramer Bussel (Is Smart the New Sexy?), she came upon a supposed sapiosexual who says this in all adorable honesty: “I don’t consciously try to assess people’s intelligence but I definitely do notice things like: How many of my jokes do they get? How fast do they respond when I ask them a question? What’s their vocabulary like? Are they comfortable talking about loftier subjects than interpersonal gossip and the weather? I think intelligence often goes hand-in-hand with humor, or at least the kind of humor I appreciate.”
But even the laziest analysis of that description shows, aside from it being very subjective, that what’s being asked for is not intelligence but flattery. Which simply requires empathy, interest in the other person, and lack of self-centeredness.
But not intelligence; any humanoid with a functioning brain sufficiently capable of powering his/her legs for autonomous motion surely can dish out flattery.
So, really, what’s actually sexy for a greater number of people is not intellect but the ability (and stomach) to profusely deliver believable compliments. Although, ironically, there is that general perception of talkativeness being a sign of low intelligence.
In any event, one does hardly find in any glossy magazine sexiest list quantum physicists or epistemologists. Yes, there are occasionally some genuinely brainy people there but the fact that they’re fit, good-looking, oftentimes rich, is certainly not coincidence.
Anyway, back to work …
Jemy Gatdula is the international law lecturer at the UA&P School of Law and Governance and Executive Director of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations.