On Howard Gardner & Hugh Hefner (or On...

I think that the phrase "you're beautiful" has reached full blown antiquated status. I think what we should say instead is "I love your face." Call me crazy (you wouldn't be the first), but this all started with an article in Scientific American Mind about the nature of praise. Specifically, the article spoke about the way in which parents should praise children who have done something worthy of such.

A typical parental response to an "A" test would be a statement like "you're so smart!" followed by hugs, kisses, and the like. The writers of the article claim that this is in fact the wrong approach. Telling a child, who then later becomes an adult, that they are intelligent indicates that intelligence is a state of being, a concept that you either fit into or do not. Therefore, when the so-called intelligent child confronts a task or idea that they can't quite conquer they become frustrated. Not simply frustrated because they can't complete the task, but frustrated because the lack of completion questions their very self-concept. An intelligent person, as the blanket statement we use it as, should be intelligent in all areas. Therefore, I should be able to sit in a math class and excel as though it were an english class. After all, I'm intelligent!

I'm not a huge proponent of Garder's multiple intelligences, but not for the reason you may think. For those unfamiliar, Howard Gardner is a contemporary psychologist who put forth the theory that there is no such thing as a single intelligence, but rather human begins were capable of many intelligences including (but not limited to) intrapersonal intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence, musical intelligence, logical intelligence, etc. My problem with Gardner (coincidentally related to the theory behind this entire post) is semantic in nature, not philosophical. To me, intelligence is the wrong term. Wrong in only it is deconstructed to the point of non-existence. Gardner began with a handful of intelligences and is working still on many more. Essentially, everything can be a form of intelligence. And as the villain in the Incredibles said to Mr. Incredible "...when we're all special, none of us will be..."

But again, the problem with intelligence (much like beauty, which I'll speak about shortly) is that it is not simply a description of being, but rather an ascription of value. Intelligent people are thought to be worth more than non-intelligent people, we strive for a more intelligent society (in theory), we strive to have our children be called intelligent by others. But what the fuck does that mean? Certainly it has little to do with brain capacity, for if that were the case there would be far fewer individuals running around with the term intelligent attached to their name. Getting back to the Scientific American Mind article, it says that praise should be given to any work or task that a child does, not to the child themselves. In other words, you're praising the work, not ascribing a character trait. This allows children to grow up with a sense that it is alright to excel in a certain area and not another. This doesn't challenge their character, but instead will allow them to more vigorously grapple with what they cannot easily attain because they believe that they can. To this day I don't believe that I'm good at math. In fact, I get filled with an irrational rage I can barely describe when I sit (or used to) in a math class and cannot understand a concept. I get mad because I feel stupid, I don't feel like the intelligent person I was told I was my entire life.

I do agree philosophically that intelligence should not be solely the realm of getting high numbers of written examinations. I'm not sure what intelligence is, I have my own definition, but I realize that it is my own. Perhaps we should all have our own definitions of things instead of some standard no one can quite define. Which leads me to...

Beauty. Interesting subject, very much related to everything I've just discussed. Maybe my viewpoint stems partially from teaching Sociology, and also from working with impressionable teenaged girls everyday, but I think everything stated in the article need apply to beauty as well as intelligence. I think we'd have a healthier world, and healthier women, were our definition of beauty were to become more individualized. Instead of realizing their own beauty, women are chasing a standard they had no role in establishing, chasing it like that all too intelligent detective chasing the elusive serial killer at the end of a good thriller (or any Morgan Freeman film). Because again, beauty in our culture is not simply a description of facial features. To call someone beautiful is to ascribe them a value someone who lacks such characteristics doesn't have. Everyone wants to be beautiful...and maybe they are...

The point: I'll keep my own council on who is intelligent and who is beautiful. Perhaps others should try the same.