What is Intelligence?

On Monday, November 23rd, Cindy Pham wrote a personal commentary in regards to the “push” of math and science as a core curriculum in our society. Ms. Pham believes that there is too much emphasis on these subjects. She expresses that other subjects, such as history and literature, are being left on the wayside. I deeply agree with Ms. Pham on this topic. In fact, I would like to expand on it with some of my own personal knowledge and perspectives.
As a student who excels at English, writing and creative arts, I have experienced a kind of solitude in our society due to the strict focus we have developed on Math and Science. I am not terrible at Science or Math, but I am much more well-rounded and at ease with Language, writing and other forms of artistic endeavors. Because of this leaning towards the creative side of life, I fell “through the cracks” of education in high school. None of my teachers quite “got me,” nor did they try to since they assumed I was just a troubled, incompetent student. However, I am quite self-taught. In high school I spent a large part of my time reading, writing, and exploring the arts through community and school classes. I was content and excelled at learning history and English. I also enjoyed learning languages like Spanish, French and American Sign Language. These subjects came naturally to me. However, it was a daily struggle with math and, occasionally, science. My brain is simply not “wired” for technology. Even as I sit here typing I am attempting to teach myself how to type on this keyboard and assimilate what everything on my computer represents. Because of the trauma I suffered with mean-spirited teachers (in math, particularly) I banished the idea of allowing technology into my life. Now, I am picking up those mathematical pieces because I need to acquire a degree which calls for some skill in math and science.
It is unfair and to me morally degrading to force only a certain kind of subject on an individual. It is even more burdensome to emphasis on only a certain subject in regards to a whole society. Even if it is just “The Arts” we focused on, it is still not proper or beneficial. However, I know that many people believe that intelligence equals math/science, or intelligence equals technology, but it is NOT true. I feel I am an intelligent person with the same capability of survival and progress as my scientific counterparts. Perhaps, I am progressing in a “different” fashion, but I have my purpose and place as do all the techno-savvy individuals of our society.
In reference to Ms. Pham’s statement on “advancing in technology” being a “wonderful” thing…that is debatable. For myself and many I know, technology is one of the prime destroyers of our earth and eventually will destroy our own species. Because we have so many technological advances in medicine, the human population is spreading like a wildfire. My candor may offend some, but I truly believe this earth can only sustain us for long if we continue to sneak around our mortality. I will not even touch on the subject of nuclear weapons, GMO's, or other weighty topics of technology, as I am positive it would offend many to no avail. I am probably quite alone in this subject in our Government class, but it is something I believe in with all my heart. Technology cannot “save” us. We are not made of computer chips or hard wiring. We are made of matter, emotion and various components not made by ourselves.
Ms. Pham raises a good point when speaking about the homogenizing of our brains. If we all become skilled at only one or two things and we forget aspects of life, like our history or our creative abilities, how intelligent would we really be? For me, one step further would be, “Why would we live?” If we lost our abilities to perform, sing, write, tell stories, or understand our past, what would we be made of? Why would we live without these pleasures that remind us of a great joy other than long division and lab work? This joy of the creative (the “feeling”) is why I live at all. I know I would be absolutely depressed and unreachable, on so many levels, if I could only do math and science everyday. I am too “in-love” with the natural and poetic side of life. I might remain physically present, but my essence would surely cease to be.
Ms. Pham is right, in my opinion; “there would be no balance and something would have to go wrong” if our focus narrowed in on Science and Math. Overall, I agree with Ms. Pham and I am grateful that someone had the moxy to share this point of view with the class. I especially enjoyed it when Cindy expresses that “we should do whatever it takes to be happy.” Otherwise, what is the point of living? Though, I hesitate to mention that we may want to take into consideration others “joys” and boundaries when seeking out our own, I understand her words. A life with no joy is quite like a life with no love: empty.

Thank you, Cindy, for understanding.