Defining Stupidity and Intelligence

I find this such a quandry. I am not an 'intelligent' person. I have a certain aptitude toward analysis and theory, I can hold abstract concepts easily in my mind and play with them. My uncle who is a psychologist said this is a skill called 'helicoptering'. This is something I am sure most people can also do although some people tell me apparently not. I cannot, however, tell my left from my right, I have a poor memory, sleep too much (! a sure sign of stupidity. Seriously, how many super-clever people boast about getting up at half ten every day?! Early bird and all that...) and I cannot do stats or maths, or anything that requires a certain kind of logical thought. Take this sentence that I just read in today's Guardian Weekend magazine for example (p. 32):

'He wanted to know if hinge dissection could be universalised. In other words, can you dissect any straight-sided shape and then hinge the pieces together in a chain so it can be folded into any other straight-sided shape of equal area?'

Does anyone else have a clue what this means? I cannot begin to decipher this sentence. I cannot imagine what shapes they are talking about, and cannot shift them about in my head to form a coherent understanding. I had a fantastic conversation with my accountant friend the other week, walking through primrose hill in London. I know that 4 cannot go into 1. I know this but I do not know why. I asked her why can 4 not go into 1 and she explained some gibberish to me. I have concluded that in my world 4 can go into 1. I definitely think that 4 goes into 1 .25 times. I can easily exasperate DB with this theory. I am quite a postmodernist (if you haven't already guessed) although not to the point where everything tangible or experienced loses reason to relativity and subjectivity. That kind of postmodernism is just way too depressing and, well, pointless really. I like a more pragmatic postmodern approach. So to me, 4-into-1 is a concept that I cannot understand because my world exists around questionning 'obvious' narratives and moving presumed boundaries in order to further our understanding of concepts and discourses. Maths and logic is the opposite of this, (unless you are talking quantum physics - that seems pretty cool and instead of using text you describe yourself in the language of numbers... cool) because you have very strict boundaries to behave within and create. I would be interested to know if anyone reading this just 'gets' the above sentence which forms the introduction of an article on a friendly weekend paper... It can't be that hard surely.

On this topic, a fantastic thing happened to me last year. In both of my masters courses I manage to work to merit standard with little real effort. I am not saying this to show off, on the contrary I am always a very dilligent worker but never think I have done enough, so... Anyway, I had some work to do with SPSS for a module. I learnt the basics of SPSS and was given a scenario to analyse using it. I did the work really well, it was quite simple and I handed it in. I got my mark: 44%!! I had to giggle, really. If nothing else it did show that the course wasn't easy and I could fail if I didn't work hard. It also proved to me that I can't take the other knowledge that I have developed and use successfully for granted, it is my skill. I was proud of that SPSS work and I have no idea to this day why it went wrong! Nope, not good at maths or stats which generally are markers of intelligence in this country. My logical ineptitude and generally jokey and lackadaisical demeanour I know do not stand well in my favour in public and therefore perceptions of my intelligence differ. I can tell by the way people treat me, especially before and after they find out I do a PhD! I wish that the 'west' would move on from such Enlightenment-based assumptions and open its eyes more to the possibilities of different forms of intelligence. Currently philosophy departments in unis all over the country are closing, as are sociology and anthropology depts. Certain scientifically-based projects are more likely to be funded than others. Creative arts, drama and music projects nationwide have to fight to get funding from a diminishing pot. This is sad. In some ways I suppose I hope my children have DB's more formal intelligence rather than my more off-beat abilities, because in this climate they will be more likely to get into good schools and be supported, and recognised as 'clever'. But then I want creative and thoughtful beings rather than wage-slaves...

I think I will skip the article...

x J