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 at

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 I'm saying that our attempts to measure indicators of intelligence are based on outdated notions of what intelligence is.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.