Pity Not the Ignorant

Intelligence is based primarily on focus.

It has become increasingly obvious to me that even those who are ignorant are rarely unintelligent. Naturally I am not alone in this conclusion, as was seen with the sudden rise of the buzz-phrase "emotional intelligence" for a few years. Indeed, I have come to be of the opinion that focus determines whether or not an individual is thought to be "smart". Consider, if you will, the example of the social butterfly whose frequent goings-on distract them from academic superiority, thus yielding the inevitable result of poor or satisfactory grades in school. This metaphor is simple in nature indeed, but let us expand it.

Our socialite's name is Fred. Fred loves sports, being outdoors, and hanging out with friends. Fred's problem is that he's failed two of his classes this semester. As a result, his parents have banned him from all social activities until he brings his grades up. Two things can occur in this instance. In one scenario, Fred's focus does not change; he sneaks out during the night to attend gatherings, continues to practice with the football team, and walks home after school. His focus remains stagnant. In another scenario Fred realizes that the quickest way for him to return to his previous lifestyle is to shift his focus. As a result, he begins studying daily and brings his grades up to a satisfactory level so that he is no longer, as it is said colloquially, "grounded". In this scenario, he changes his focus just long enough to bring about change, and then reverts back to his usual self.

Intelligence has for quite a long time been determined via the transfer of knowledge. If you can answer a question, that makes you intelligent; the more difficult, complex, or numerous the questions are, the more intelligent you must be! The truth is, however, that this is not the case. As I'm sure many of my readers realize, academic grades are not always the best measure of intellect. I propose that this is because it is an individual's focus which determines what they are good at, and skill is one of the primary indicators of intelligence. Even being a "jack of all trades" is a compliment, as is being "verbally proficient" or "a great quarterback."

Consider again the example of Fred. In each of our imaginary scenarios, Fred's focus remained relatively unchanged. In one his focus was stagnant, and in the other his focus flickered briefly, but only to obtain the larger goal of maintaining his current focus! Because of this, Fred's lifestyle and personality remained unchanged. In this case his focus is entirely egocentric; he has always enjoyed certain activities, and so he attempts to make these a priority. On the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate it is logical to assume that if Fred changed his focus and attended law school as his father desired then Fred would be miserable. This is a reasonable assumption to make, and I would not disagree.

In this case I have presented the idea that focus strongly affects what we consider intelligent. If Fred shows himself to be exceedingly clever in sneaking out at night, we may assume that he is very intelligent (if misguided). Because of this I am led to the following conclusion: the better someone is at focusing at various levels, the happier they will be, and the more intelligent they are. My conclusion, in so many words, is that intelligence is inexorably hinged to joy.

There is more to explore on this subject, but I will leave that up to you, the reader. Ponder this:

If intelligence and joy are directly related, what manner of relationship is it? Does the generally unhappy individual develop a superior intellect for the purposes of maintaining focus on the things they enjoy, or is it this superior intellect that makes it so difficult for this person to enjoy life? Is this theory in conflict with the statement "ignorance is bliss?" Where does the bulk of intelligence development lie, nature or nurture?