What is intelligence?

What is intelligence? Let us count the ways. Actually, the many definitions you’ll find below are merely the tip of the iceberg. I have listed my sources at the end of this post. “I’ve become more aware of and impressed by how much of leadership is about emotional intelligence. The more you lead, the more you understand how much of it is about motivation – and motivation is about emotions…To lead, being smart isn’t sufficient. You have to connect with people so that they want to help you move the organization forward.” Robert Joss, Dean of Stanford University’s Business School. “Knowing a great deal is not the same as being smart; intelligence is not information alone but also judgment, the manner in which information is collected and used.” Carl Sagan “I not only use all the brains that I have, but all that I can borrow.” Woodrow Wilson “It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer” Albert Einstein “Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.” Winston Churchill “Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” Stephen Hawking "The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, especially toward a purposeful goal." dictionary.com “We define emotional intelligence as the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions.” Salovey & Mayer, Emotional Intelligence (1990) “Does a president need to be smarter than his advisors? The key is how to define ‘smart.’ A president can hardly be more expert than, in sum, a collection of advisors…” Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty "Much evidence testifies that people who are emotionally adept -- who know and manage their own feelings well, and who read and deal effectively with other people's feelings -- are at an advantage in any domain of life, whether romance and intimate relationships or picking up the unspoken rules that govern success in organizational politics.” Daniel Goleman “Intelligence is solving a problem or creating a product that is valued in society.” Image by Brunosan at Flickr (creative commons) Image by Brunosan at Flickr (creative commons) Howard Gardner

Continue ReadingWhat is intelligence?

Too Many Rooms, Too Few Doors

That poor guy who got tied to a tree in Kentucky was on my mind last week. Census takers have, in certain parts of the country, been lumped in with so-called "revenooers" (to use Snuffy Smith jargon) and generally threatened, shot at, occasionally killed by folks exercising their right to be separate. So they assume. Appalachia, the Ozarks, parts of Tennessee and Kentucky, Texas...a lot of pockets, populated by people who have, for many reasons, acquired a sense of identity apart from the mainstream, and who feel imposed upon if the gov'ment so much as notices their existence. They'd have a point if they truly did maintain a separate existence, but they don't, and hypocrisy is the least amendable vice to reason. At one time it was bootlegging, today it's drugs, either marijuana or meth. They don't seem to get it that if they contribute to the erosion of the public weal then they forfeit the "right" to be left alone. I really believe they don't understand this simple equation. Nor, in fact, do they care. But do I believe that poor man was killed over some disagreement over political hegemony? No. He knocked on the wrong door at the wrong time and asked the wrong question and some good ol' boys killed him. Scrawling "Fed" on his chest was probably an afterthought, and means about as much as had they written "Cop" or "Fag" or "Stranger." Whoever did it probably thought he was being cute. [more . . .]

Continue ReadingToo Many Rooms, Too Few Doors

Excuse me . . . my mortality is showing: meditations on life and death

Have you ever wondered why so many Americans wear clothing when it's warm outside? Are they really covering up for sexual propriety—because of shame? Or could it be that they are wearing clothes to cover up their animal-ness-- their mortality? I'm intrigued by this issue, as you can tell from my previous writings, including my posts about "terror management theory," and nipples. This issue came to mind again recently when I found a website that allows you to completely undress people. The site has nothing to do with sex, I can assure you, but it has a powerful set of images that raise interesting questions about human nakedness. To get the full experience, go to the website and select an image of a fully clothed person. These are absolutely ordinary looking people, as you will see. Then click on the images of any of these men or women and watch their clothes disappear. If you are like me, when their clothing disappears, this will not cause you to any think sexual thoughts. If you are like me, you will find yourself thinking that these people looked more "attractive" with their clothes on. For me, the effect is dramatic and immediate, and it reminded me of a comment by Sigmund Freud (I wasn't able to dig out the quote), something to the effect that we are constantly and intensely attracted to the idea of sex (duh!), but that sex organs themselves often look rather strange to our eyes--sex organs are not necessarily sexy. I think the same thing can be said for our entire bodies. Nakedness isn’t the same thing as sexuality or else nudist colonies would tend to be orgies (which, from what I’ve read, they are not). Rather, sexual feelings are triggered by the way we use our bodies. We do many things that are sexual, and most of these things take some effort. Simply being naked is not an effective way to be sexy. In America, people constantly confound nudity with sexuality. I admit that the media presents us with many ravishing image of sexy naked people, but the sexiness of such images is not due to the mere nakedness. There’s always a lot more going on than mere nakedness. Consider also, that when people actually mate, they often bring the lights down low, further hiding their bodies. Then why do Westerners cover up with clothing to be "proper"? I suspect that anxiety about death (not so much anxiety about sex) contributes to our widespread practice of hiding those naturally furry parts of our bodies—those parts associated with critically "animal" functions relating to reproduction and excretion of body wastes. [More . . .]

Continue ReadingExcuse me . . . my mortality is showing: meditations on life and death

How to spot a liar.

I don't think I'm good at spotting liars. I don't usually recognize the that I've been lied to until after "things just don't add up," and that might be a long time after the lie occurs. I'm almost always surprised when it turns out that my trust was betrayed. This two-minute How-Cast video gives a brisk summary of some some advice that resonates with me. Now I'll just have to see if I'll be able to employ this advice to good effect.

Continue ReadingHow to spot a liar.

FCC comes through big on net neutrality

Because the citizens keep losing out to the political clout of banks, insurance companies and other well-monied industries, it's especially good to see the People of the United States win one against the telecoms. The FCC came down strongly in favor of net neutrality today. This is an incredibly important day for those of us who believe in grassroots politics and the fair and free exchange of ideas. For those not clear on the stakes, I refer you to my earlier report on the importance of net neutrality based on Tim Wu's explanation at the 2007 National Conference on Media Reform in Memphis. Today, the FCC announced two new guiding principles regarding use of the Internet:

- Broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications; and

- Providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.

Here are today's words of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski:
This is how I propose we move forward: To date, the Federal Communications Commission has addressed these issues by announcing four Internet principles that guide our case-by-case enforcement of the communications laws. These principles can be summarized as: Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network. The principles were initially articulated by Chairman Michael Powell in 2004 as the “Four Freedoms,” and later endorsed in a unanimous 2005 policy statement issued by the Commission under Chairman Kevin Martin and with the forceful support of Commissioner Michael Copps, who of course remains on the Commission today. In the years since 2005, the Internet has continued to evolve and the FCC has issued a number of important bipartisan decisions involving openness. Today, I propose that the FCC adopt the existing principles as Commission rules, along with two additional principles that reflect the evolution of the Internet and that are essential to ensuring its continued openness. Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications.

Continue ReadingFCC comes through big on net neutrality