7 ms·

Or another way of looking at it ... We (should) do what we are interested in, rather than what others perceive we should do, or others may perceive as worthy. M

Or another way of looking at it ... We (should) do what we are interested in, rather than what others perceive we should do, or others may perceive as worthy. My son is exceptionally smart (and I deal with a lot of kids, so I have a reasonable basis to compare). He's only young ... But his strong suit seems to be very involved stories that he makes up. If I were to guess (yes, I'm crystal ball gazing), he'll be a writer. Despite being one of the most academically gifted children I know, he is looking to "only" amount to a writer. If he does, I'll fully encourage that as it has been his keen interest since he was about 2. Mind you, I'll support any constructive interest he has :)

david927 13y ago
I couldn't agree more. I'm not saying intelligence is reserved for accepted professions; Joyce was a genius just as surely as Einstein. I'm saying that our attempts to measure indicators of intelligence are based on outdated notions of what intelligence is. We shouldn't be looking for prodigies and mental agility: that brings us nothing. Being able to do a Sudoku in your head is meaningless. It's certainly a mental talent, but what is it compared to what Einstein contributed? Can you imagine a world where they said, "Sure, Einstein was smart, but John Smith was smarter -- he could do a Sudoku in two minutes!" When we say someone is smart because of their IQ score, we're saying almost exactly that. Any definition of great intelligence or genius would have to include its output, its product. (If you're the only person in the world, are you beautiful? If you have the greatest mind but you only use it to take IQ tests, are you smart?) You can be a genius in any endeavor, in any field, but never on paper.