Intelligence

From The Blue Sweater, posted 21 September 2009

Note to readers of ContemplAsian: Sorry, I have not been posting for some time. Here's one from The Blue Sweater that would be quite meaningful...

I was having a long conversation with De Maitre about this topic, a topic that in many ways affect all of us in one way or another.

We talked about three things, the meaning of intelligence, government by elites, and of course, this:



The meaning and purpose of exams.

What is intelligence?

It’s a question that I have addressed many times while writing posts for ContemplAsian, Maitre’s blog. But more often, I expounded on the problem of the meaning of intelligence being misinterpreted or distorted, rather than exploring the true meaning of intelligence.

We all know in our society, intelligence is measured by grades and certification. But what Maitre has persistently tried to tell me in our conversation was that there must be more to intelligence.

I certainly agree.

But the thing is, the idea of intelligence, like many things of a conceptual nature, runs into philosophical problems.

I was reminded of my Philosophy module at this point. For the module, I covered one of Plato’s dialogues, entitled Meno, part of which is a discussion between the characters Meno and Socrates on the nature of “success”.

And one thing that is in common with both the ideas of “intelligence” and “success” is that it is extremely difficult to identity the one single criterion or factor that could define the idea.

Take Meno, for example. We can be successful as doctors, as scientists, as historians, as teachers, but what is common between them? Ultimately, it doesn’t answer the question, what IS success?

Likewise, we can be intelligent in this subject, intelligent in another, but what IS intelligence? Still not quite answered.

Of course, one might just give up and say that to come up with the questions I have put up above is itself intelligence.


Next, government by elites.

It’s one of Singapore’s key ideologies - Meritocracy. Those with the ability and skills should and could manage the affairs of the state.

But this reveals a fundamental question:

Do we need elites to govern, if governance is about furthering the interests of the people?

Because here we assume the elites know our interests. But can we always be so sure?

On the other hand, if we don't have elites (or experts, to use a less loaded word), then will things turn out right for the state?

Maitre brought up the idea of separating “technical” skills from the raw ability to lead, but I can’t help but feel that this dichotomy is fundamentally ambiguous. For a start, what is meant by “technical” skills? And what is meant by the “raw ability”?

Even if we take skills to be things like knowledge in economics, public administration, etc, it doesn’t separate leadership from the elites. And even if we say leaders should have the “raw ability”, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are the ones leading.

For example, the result is the bureaucratic state, where real power lies in the bureaucrats rather than the politicians.

This reminds me of a quote: Leadership is Action, Not Position.


Last, examinations.

Maitre was critical of the exam system. Well, such criticism is to an extent justified. The exam system sometimes creates undesirable effects that affect the overall well-being of the education system.

I once wrote a post in ContemplAsian about exams. There, I explored why we needed exams in the first place. Exams are needed as a mechanism with which to incentivise hard work and penalise sloth. This is the most important reason for exams.

Of course, many states and societies also come to use exams as a measure of success and as a tool of academic advancement, but these are, to me, secondary reasons, because many societies (especially in Europe) don’t have stringent exams, but still achieve (arguably) these results.

In a line, exams are a mechanism for competition.

It is true that exams can distort the meaning of education. When people forget the purpose of education and think that they “study so as to pass exams”, then education truly loses meaning.

But I think it’s not so much the institution of exams, but the procedures within the institution.

Take for example Continual Assessment. In university, part of it is participation in tutorial. The trouble with making such things gradable is that it creates certain... how should I put it... strange effects.

This is because participation is subjective, if not downright ambiguous. What is wanted is “meaningful participation”, but what exactly is “meaningful participation”?

So we have people talking a lot, but you can sense they are just hoarding air time.

And for people with nothing or no time to say anything, is it fair to them that they be penalised?


So what is intelligence? Turns out I still haven’t answered the question...