Academics, Intellectuals, Scholars, and Smart People in General

I’ve once again come back to the issue of Intelligence. (De Maitre’s right in a sense, it’s not the end of the “What is” series)

But this time, I’m going to talk about something more practical. Specifically, HOW to be an intelligent person.

Not that I am THAT intelligent to teach what intelligence really is, but my point is to give an idea that intelligence isn’t just how many As one got for the exams, but much more.

But first, let’s look at the general culture about intelligence in our society today.

It’s been covered by many posts in this blog. De Maitre has talked about the attitudes towards intelligence, and how it’s a social construct used by the “smart” to call other people “stupid”. De Maitre, together with Ivan in a guest post, also explored the problem of elitism in Singapore. Meanwhile, I talked about the superficial understanding of intelligence in our society today.

I’m going further. I’m going to talk about elitism in Singapore as a matter of national policy.

One of the key “ideologies” (in inverted commas because strictly speaking, Singapore does not have an official political ideology, unlike say, N Korea) of the Singapore ruling elite is that of meritocracy. The principles of meritocracy are good. Meritocracy gives people positions or responsibilities based on ability and effort.

To realise that it’s good, imagine a time and place, where someone becomes a Minister, or General of the Army, or something like that, simply because he’s the Prime Minister’s brother or best friend. There’s a term for it: nepotism. The problem is, what if the brother or friend is a good-for-nothing?

But the trouble with meritocracy is this: with what do you measure ability? How could someone prove that he/she has the ability?

So here comes the fetish for exam results, for certificates, for titles like Doctor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor Emeritus, etc. You get the idea.

The reason is simple. You can’t really prove that you are good at something simply by saying it, but you can prove that you were a uni grad with your degree scroll (a real one, that is, sadly for the students at Brookes), and when you're addressed as “Dr so-and-so”, everyone knows you’re somebody.

So the point is, meritocracy can easily be construed as elitism, when ability came to be interpreted by A+, A, A- etc. Grades can tell us something about effort, and arguably ability, but there are so many other important things that degrees (and grades in general) cannot tell us.

To make things worse, because these measures of ability became so important, people came to misunderstand their true meaning. People only see titles and qualifications as status symbols, but forget that these titles and qualifications carry with them important responsibilities. There are parents that want their children to be doctors or academics because it looks good on them, without knowing what doctors and academics actually do, or actually get for their work.

Doctors do get fair pay, but there’s a mile of difference between a family doctor and a specialist. Academics do get fair pay, but they have to do a lot of work for it, and contrary to popular belief, it’s not an “iron rice bowl.”

This is where intellectual snobbery comes in.


So, how to be an intellectual person?

Let’s first identify all the nuances.

What is the difference between confidence and arrogance?
What is the difference between conviction and stubbornness?
What is the difference between humility and deference?
What is the difference between relevance and irrelevance?

Everyone has his/her own answer, but here’s what I think.

Confidence comes from knowing your stuff. Arrogance comes from thinking ONLY YOU know your stuff. Smart people wouldn’t be doing that, simply because no one has a monopoly on knowledge.

Conviction lies in respect for evidence. Stubbornness resist the weight of evidence.
When the “ideal” (again in inverted commas, because ideals are themselves subjective) intellectual is humble, he/she is willing to learn from others, and from him/herself. Because no one has a monopoly on knowledge, no one can also claim to know everything, and no one can claim to have known everything better than anyone else.

As the old Chinese saying goes, “for every mountain there is a mountain yet taller.”

The difference between relevance and irrelevance?

Just read my post, What is Intelligence.


To end off, here’s another story from the philosopher Zhuang-zi (how I admire Zhuang-zi, all the interesting stories):

During spring, the yellow river will flood the surrounding plains. The river god travelled along the river on a tour, and he was very pleased with himself, and said: “I’ve covered the land as far as the eye can see. How great I am!”

But when he reached the mouth of the river, and saw the sea, he sighed: “If I haven’t been to the sea, I’ll have been deceiving myself. The sea is so much bigger!”

But then the sea god came to him and told him: “there is something even bigger than me. It’s heaven and earth. Heaven and earth created all things, they are the greatest.”

The moral of the story? For something good, there’s always something better.