Excellent, brutal essay. You nail the essence of the service economy. Makes me think that the ennui I feel comes from knowing that at work I’ve hyper-developed my cleverness and let my intelligence atrophy. Great stuff
Such a stellar essay! It reminded me of just this past Friday when I (pedestrian) got into an altercation with a driver who exited the car to confront me. Past me would have acted clever and sharp tongued just to get the "win," but this version of me - while still pretty hot in fury - managed to apply reasonableness and end it on a line of "well, let's both do better next time." That felt like the intelligence you discussed.
Confrontations like that are often one of those things where you win by losing, or by deciding not to go for the win by being sharp tongued or aggressive. More aikido than boxing. But of course this is very, very hard to do in the moment when tempers can flair up and the ego can demand victory.
Really enjoyed this Tom. I am finding that due to the pretty substantial output in the STSC nowadays, as well as numerous articles to enjoy on their own merits, there are at least two or three articles a week that really get me thinking more on the themes that are already swimming around in the back of my mind.
As someone who was smart, clever and intelligent at school it took me getting expelled and a few years after to really reflect on the differences myself, previously having thought that they were synonyms explaining why I found getting an A in almost any subject easy.
Obviously as a radical educator I like how you note the school system selects for this, as this was my belated conclusion as I realised I was not as special as I previously thought, which I think gets at the problem that you are getting at: if I hadn't been expelled I think I would have continued thinking I was special in some way.
I've been pondering this a lot in my work and I wonder if there are additional aspects to cultivating wisdom that the school system also gets in the way of: interpersonal relationships and common sense. After initially concluding that I was not special and therefore not intelligent I quickly realised that that was a strawman, everyone is intelligent in different ways and that what school does is takes and selects for a narrow definition of intelligence; broadly speaking being clever is having the intelligence that thrives within schooling. But being told at school that you are clever, and by implication others are not, affects how you view those others and affects your interpersonal relations/understanding, you imbue that hierarchy within by osmosis over the years and the danger is that is that you think of yourself as smart - as you note this is slightly different to clever and more a surface thing. That surface level understanding lacks the self-awareness to see clever for what it is: a narrow definition of intelligence elevated by society. Those that are the most clever run the risk of becoming the most smart, of being elevated too far by society so that that self-awareness becomes even harder to grasp at, which is where I feel politicians are at right now.
I would say a working class dropout who realises thier skills lie in their hands and goes on to be a carpenter building and renovating oak beam houses has realised where their intelligence lies. Intelligence is domain specific and mastery of your specific domain teaches you that you are inherently highly competent but also the limitations of your competence, you are only competent within that domain. Proper exploration of your intelligence should teach you these two conflicting yet complementary skills: competence and humility. I think school teaches clever/smart people they are competent without any humility. A dropout notices that limitation easily, someone who has had smoke blown up their ass throughout the whole of their schooling is going to find it hard.
The humble are going to be willing to listen to the views of others, but the internalised hierarchy of the schooling system makes it doubly hard for the smart to relate to others they see below/beneath them. Furthermore, I think the false impression that school and it's hierarchy gives is reductionist, that the world is simple for smart people to master, and hides the messy complexity of the real world, and this I would argue is where common sense comes in, this reductionist outlook tampers with common sense, which school has no interest in cultivating anyway, and creates IYIs.
I think education should be about allowing people to explore where their gifts lie, encouraging them that they are intelligent in their own way and strive to help them gain competency, whilst reflecting on their limitations, not as a negative thing, but a facet of being human. I think that knowing you are competent but that others are in different ways and that you need to relate to them because the world is messy is the start to getting anywhere near the path to wisdom.
Thank you for taking the time to post this Tim. It's a perfect expansion and compainion to my essay and I look forward to you running with all of these ideas in your own Substack which I think is a much needed project.
I'm not sure what else to add other than to note that all of this resonated deeply with me, especially the penultimate paragraph, and I am glad that someone with as much experience and skin in the game as you is grappling with this topic of schooling vs education and is also walking the walking too.
Superb essay, welcome distinction between all three.
However Tom, I have a problem: almost everyone would rate themselves as intelligent if asked to place themselves in a category. Yet, I believe we sneer at genuine intelligence when we see it. What can one do to be both honest with himself and welcome the truly intelligent?
> See cleverness is what we talk about when we talk about IQ... There is no broadness of thought or ability to look at problems from different points of view or with a different lens... Rather than being innate or something that is easy to outwardly signal intelligence is a cultivated trait. It reflects the ability to interpret soundly and to think deeply. It is something that guides your conduct.
To respond to both the article and this response: There is the Idea that Performance IQ and Verbal IQ are different components inherit to guiding conduct. The former is an honest signal for sincerely abide by conduct (or moral fiber), whilst the latter is tied to simulating conduct (or compliance). https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2020/05/the-verbal-tilt-model/
What that mean is that people who are eloquent but dull would have talk a lot to pose as if they have depth of thought when they are not, which help with tactical socialization but not necessarily be able to be valuable as a one-man-army; while the converse, those who are thoughtful but have a habit of misusing words are at a disposition of being exploited by the more eloquent, and smeared into oblivion without given a chance to elaborate for oneself. The bad drives out the good.
Another good solution apart from "listen from both ends of the extreme", is to recognize bad logic and malicious rhetoric. I found "toy guns" (false authority) and "treacle" (bad faith altruism) are good examples of this. Arthur Conan Doyle's quote applicable for finding safe communication partners, only talk to those who are "nice but not kind". https://archive.ph/cIXxD
Weird unsolved problem: in case we do have to deal with difficult people, what can be done?
Intelligence is a paradox in that regard. I suspect the truly intelligent would downplay there intelligence in that classic Socratic manner:
“Intelligent individuals learn from every thing and every one; average people, from their experiences. The stupid already have all the answers.” ~Socrates
As to honesty, I think we all know in our hearts when we are not being honest with ourselves. We just learn over time to become good at squashing that feeling down. So the solution is to embrace it and then take it from there.
This essay is why I upgraded to paid. I’ve gotten in trouble my entire life for questioning word usage and been praised(I almost said lauded) for my precise language. My children know that words have meaning and have become expert speakers and writers.
Downside is that I feel a bit disrespected when my husband can’t be bothered to pay attention to his word choice and just reaches into his bag of big words to grab one and throw it down as if I accept his vaguely implied meaning.
Now I’ve shown my overly critical side. I bet you get me.
Obviously I am not looking for a "top 10"list, but any tips for us parents with young kids as to impactful things that can hone children word usage and language precision? Obviously given your occupation and "eating your own cooking" by raising your kids with this focus you have some intelligence on this topic and some wisdom (pun intended). Hope I am not trying to be too smart:)
Thank you for this lovely comment. Please speak to your children in the precise language you would like them to use. Read read read obviously. My kids loved audiobooks. I suspect those beautiful performances by trained speakers influenced them. I personally do not accept mumbling. The children who came to my house and said “I don’t care” to everything I said received nothing until they gave me a specific yes or no answer. Would you like a cookie? “I don’t care.” Okay, no cookie then.
Suddenly they would become able to articulate.
Also, lots of songs! And games. And listening to adults. Hmm. I bet you already do these things!
Psychology has shown us that input is the key to language development. My cognitively impaired son had an age appropriate receptive vocabulary even though he couldn’t read or speak.
Last but not least, speak or sing in a different language sometimes.
Enjoy your family and cherish every stage. The years fly.
Thank you for the inspiring and actionable nuggets of experience. Not tolerating mumbling is a solid reminder, but wish me luck as teen angst approaches:). I will work to keep the input coming....of course after I have a moment of idleness.
Best to you and your family cause as you reminded us, in parenting the days are long, but the years are short. WW
I absolutely do! I think those philosophy seminars I sat through at 18 or 19 which seemed to be hours and hours of trying to precisely lay a framework for discussion (‘When I say table to I really mean the same as when you say table?’ etc) had an impact on me. I’m not even sure if it was a positive one, to be honest, but it affected some kind of change nonetheless. Or it crystallised what was already there.
I became a world language teacher and was concerned when I taught the word “magnus”. The glossary defined it as “big, large”. The majority of students opted for “big” every time. The difference is a bit subtle I suppose but not recognizing it resulted in some sentences that set my teeth on edge. “The Roman Empire was big.” News is big, empires are large.
Another problem was the use of “a,an” versus “the”.
Readers usually get it. More reading equals better word choice.
I can spot a poor word choice a mile away. Thanks for saying it matters!
It absolutely does, I’ll admit I lean somewhat more towards sounds/aesthetics rather than precision at times but it’s still something I very much ponder over.
And yes more reading equals better word choice. It is integral.
I think word choice matters. George Orwell emphasizes it in his essay 'Politics and the English Language.'
I just think people don't want to bother themselves with choosing the perfect word. As it is, picking the right word forces you to think. Stopping to think, I think, is a burden too big for many of us to do multiple times a day.
I am always on this rule for those with English as Second Language: if you can't pick the right words, keep it clear and simple but not brevity for its sake.
Precision, poetic effect and expediency are always going to be battling it out when it comes to word choice. But for whatever reason the current environment seems to favour that final, easier option.
And I suspect it’s why profanity is so rife- not as edgy rebellion or risky emphasis but simply as a quick and lazy filler to bulk out a statement. You know?
After further review, your statement TJB of "precision, poetic effect and expediency are always battling it out" and current times favor expediency could be hashed out in a major way writing wise and sociologically. What tips/tilts a society (or past societies) to poetic effect, versus swaying to precision? Indeed, what does word choice and selection say about society and the value/importance of our writings? What would Ong say about this when comparing to oral tradition societies? Just thinking out loud, but it feels good to be thinking....
Man, these are huge questions. Part of me thinks the very nature of certain languages tilts them one way or the other. But English is interesting as it is such a mongrel language that it can sway either way. What leads to that sway is beyond my ability to say, but in this present age our online overlords and general media landscape will be instrumental in (attempting to) dictate the direction. But we individuals always have a choice.
Shrinking attention span is the killer. Which is why I am always pleased when people both take the effort to leave thoughtful comments here after reading my often dense pieces. Shows there is still hope!
As self appointed "attention sheriff" (mainly for myself), I have noted over the last few months with the use of a new pad how you can get "vocabulary erosion" on even important emails because over time you increasingly succumb to the word suggestions. The suggestions just keep coming, offering the path of least resistance with minimal typing, and distracting from your train of thought. Here is an exercise: When you are looking for the right word while typing, how often is the infernal computer suggestion right? What if you just wrote a message using the electronic suggestions? Would "infernal" have popped up in the previous sentence? What if ALL your thoughts were limited to the first page of an "Oogle" search engine suggestion....wait...has it already happened? Love the essay and comments. As Trility said last week TJB, your words often portray the hidden unspoken internal zeitgeist for many of your readers.
Yeah, it's funny how these thoughts of vocabulary can lead you to wondering just how much we are controlled by our devices.
People say that 1984 is Orwells masterwork on authoritarianism but in truth it is his essay Politics and the English Language. Well worth a read that one.
Very interesting, except that I don't actually agree with your footnote #2, that there are lots of synonyms in English. I tend towards the view, put forward by the writer Richard Nilsen that there are no synonyms at all -- see https://terryfreedman.substack.com/p/mind-your-language :-)
Could it be that it is much better to ELI5 or ELI14 or whatever, such that it is easily understood for those who are of different culture but is accepting of reading other peoples perspectives? Perhaps a non-loaded version of "plain English"? https://www.plainlanguage.gov/
Thanks Olaf, glad you enjoyed. Of course, I wrote this from the lens of my own experience but it comes as no surprise to me that lawyers also fall foul of this dynamic.
Exactly that! Unboxing only applies to opening up the packaging of gadgets for a YouTube audience it seems. Which is a shame as there are plenty more metaphorical boxes which need to be either broken down on ignored.
Excellent, brutal essay. You nail the essence of the service economy. Makes me think that the ennui I feel comes from knowing that at work I’ve hyper-developed my cleverness and let my intelligence atrophy. Great stuff
My go-to is Aristotle's distinction between the merely clever and the wise in the Nicomachean Ethics.
The clever can do all sorts of intelligent things if one only looks at the surface relation of means to ends.
It takes a wise person to know which things are worth doing and worth wanting.
That's perfect, yes, I completely agree with his distinction there.
Such a stellar essay! It reminded me of just this past Friday when I (pedestrian) got into an altercation with a driver who exited the car to confront me. Past me would have acted clever and sharp tongued just to get the "win," but this version of me - while still pretty hot in fury - managed to apply reasonableness and end it on a line of "well, let's both do better next time." That felt like the intelligence you discussed.
Confrontations like that are often one of those things where you win by losing, or by deciding not to go for the win by being sharp tongued or aggressive. More aikido than boxing. But of course this is very, very hard to do in the moment when tempers can flair up and the ego can demand victory.
Yes, perfectly said! "more aikido than boxing." Yes.
One of the best ‘de-escalators’ in my old job was an aikido black belt. Said the principle was the same.
Really enjoyed this Tom. I am finding that due to the pretty substantial output in the STSC nowadays, as well as numerous articles to enjoy on their own merits, there are at least two or three articles a week that really get me thinking more on the themes that are already swimming around in the back of my mind.
As someone who was smart, clever and intelligent at school it took me getting expelled and a few years after to really reflect on the differences myself, previously having thought that they were synonyms explaining why I found getting an A in almost any subject easy.
Obviously as a radical educator I like how you note the school system selects for this, as this was my belated conclusion as I realised I was not as special as I previously thought, which I think gets at the problem that you are getting at: if I hadn't been expelled I think I would have continued thinking I was special in some way.
I've been pondering this a lot in my work and I wonder if there are additional aspects to cultivating wisdom that the school system also gets in the way of: interpersonal relationships and common sense. After initially concluding that I was not special and therefore not intelligent I quickly realised that that was a strawman, everyone is intelligent in different ways and that what school does is takes and selects for a narrow definition of intelligence; broadly speaking being clever is having the intelligence that thrives within schooling. But being told at school that you are clever, and by implication others are not, affects how you view those others and affects your interpersonal relations/understanding, you imbue that hierarchy within by osmosis over the years and the danger is that is that you think of yourself as smart - as you note this is slightly different to clever and more a surface thing. That surface level understanding lacks the self-awareness to see clever for what it is: a narrow definition of intelligence elevated by society. Those that are the most clever run the risk of becoming the most smart, of being elevated too far by society so that that self-awareness becomes even harder to grasp at, which is where I feel politicians are at right now.
I would say a working class dropout who realises thier skills lie in their hands and goes on to be a carpenter building and renovating oak beam houses has realised where their intelligence lies. Intelligence is domain specific and mastery of your specific domain teaches you that you are inherently highly competent but also the limitations of your competence, you are only competent within that domain. Proper exploration of your intelligence should teach you these two conflicting yet complementary skills: competence and humility. I think school teaches clever/smart people they are competent without any humility. A dropout notices that limitation easily, someone who has had smoke blown up their ass throughout the whole of their schooling is going to find it hard.
The humble are going to be willing to listen to the views of others, but the internalised hierarchy of the schooling system makes it doubly hard for the smart to relate to others they see below/beneath them. Furthermore, I think the false impression that school and it's hierarchy gives is reductionist, that the world is simple for smart people to master, and hides the messy complexity of the real world, and this I would argue is where common sense comes in, this reductionist outlook tampers with common sense, which school has no interest in cultivating anyway, and creates IYIs.
I think education should be about allowing people to explore where their gifts lie, encouraging them that they are intelligent in their own way and strive to help them gain competency, whilst reflecting on their limitations, not as a negative thing, but a facet of being human. I think that knowing you are competent but that others are in different ways and that you need to relate to them because the world is messy is the start to getting anywhere near the path to wisdom.
Thank you for taking the time to post this Tim. It's a perfect expansion and compainion to my essay and I look forward to you running with all of these ideas in your own Substack which I think is a much needed project.
I'm not sure what else to add other than to note that all of this resonated deeply with me, especially the penultimate paragraph, and I am glad that someone with as much experience and skin in the game as you is grappling with this topic of schooling vs education and is also walking the walking too.
Inspiring stuff.
Cheers, Tim.
Superb essay, welcome distinction between all three.
However Tom, I have a problem: almost everyone would rate themselves as intelligent if asked to place themselves in a category. Yet, I believe we sneer at genuine intelligence when we see it. What can one do to be both honest with himself and welcome the truly intelligent?
> See cleverness is what we talk about when we talk about IQ... There is no broadness of thought or ability to look at problems from different points of view or with a different lens... Rather than being innate or something that is easy to outwardly signal intelligence is a cultivated trait. It reflects the ability to interpret soundly and to think deeply. It is something that guides your conduct.
To respond to both the article and this response: There is the Idea that Performance IQ and Verbal IQ are different components inherit to guiding conduct. The former is an honest signal for sincerely abide by conduct (or moral fiber), whilst the latter is tied to simulating conduct (or compliance). https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2020/05/the-verbal-tilt-model/
What that mean is that people who are eloquent but dull would have talk a lot to pose as if they have depth of thought when they are not, which help with tactical socialization but not necessarily be able to be valuable as a one-man-army; while the converse, those who are thoughtful but have a habit of misusing words are at a disposition of being exploited by the more eloquent, and smeared into oblivion without given a chance to elaborate for oneself. The bad drives out the good.
Another good solution apart from "listen from both ends of the extreme", is to recognize bad logic and malicious rhetoric. I found "toy guns" (false authority) and "treacle" (bad faith altruism) are good examples of this. Arthur Conan Doyle's quote applicable for finding safe communication partners, only talk to those who are "nice but not kind". https://archive.ph/cIXxD
Weird unsolved problem: in case we do have to deal with difficult people, what can be done?
Intelligence is a paradox in that regard. I suspect the truly intelligent would downplay there intelligence in that classic Socratic manner:
“Intelligent individuals learn from every thing and every one; average people, from their experiences. The stupid already have all the answers.” ~Socrates
As to honesty, I think we all know in our hearts when we are not being honest with ourselves. We just learn over time to become good at squashing that feeling down. So the solution is to embrace it and then take it from there.
This essay is why I upgraded to paid. I’ve gotten in trouble my entire life for questioning word usage and been praised(I almost said lauded) for my precise language. My children know that words have meaning and have become expert speakers and writers.
Downside is that I feel a bit disrespected when my husband can’t be bothered to pay attention to his word choice and just reaches into his bag of big words to grab one and throw it down as if I accept his vaguely implied meaning.
Now I’ve shown my overly critical side. I bet you get me.
Obviously I am not looking for a "top 10"list, but any tips for us parents with young kids as to impactful things that can hone children word usage and language precision? Obviously given your occupation and "eating your own cooking" by raising your kids with this focus you have some intelligence on this topic and some wisdom (pun intended). Hope I am not trying to be too smart:)
Thank you for this lovely comment. Please speak to your children in the precise language you would like them to use. Read read read obviously. My kids loved audiobooks. I suspect those beautiful performances by trained speakers influenced them. I personally do not accept mumbling. The children who came to my house and said “I don’t care” to everything I said received nothing until they gave me a specific yes or no answer. Would you like a cookie? “I don’t care.” Okay, no cookie then.
Suddenly they would become able to articulate.
Also, lots of songs! And games. And listening to adults. Hmm. I bet you already do these things!
Psychology has shown us that input is the key to language development. My cognitively impaired son had an age appropriate receptive vocabulary even though he couldn’t read or speak.
Last but not least, speak or sing in a different language sometimes.
Enjoy your family and cherish every stage. The years fly.
Thank you for the inspiring and actionable nuggets of experience. Not tolerating mumbling is a solid reminder, but wish me luck as teen angst approaches:). I will work to keep the input coming....of course after I have a moment of idleness.
Best to you and your family cause as you reminded us, in parenting the days are long, but the years are short. WW
You are most welcome. I am gratified by your interest.
I absolutely do! I think those philosophy seminars I sat through at 18 or 19 which seemed to be hours and hours of trying to precisely lay a framework for discussion (‘When I say table to I really mean the same as when you say table?’ etc) had an impact on me. I’m not even sure if it was a positive one, to be honest, but it affected some kind of change nonetheless. Or it crystallised what was already there.
I became a world language teacher and was concerned when I taught the word “magnus”. The glossary defined it as “big, large”. The majority of students opted for “big” every time. The difference is a bit subtle I suppose but not recognizing it resulted in some sentences that set my teeth on edge. “The Roman Empire was big.” News is big, empires are large.
Another problem was the use of “a,an” versus “the”.
Readers usually get it. More reading equals better word choice.
I can spot a poor word choice a mile away. Thanks for saying it matters!
It absolutely does, I’ll admit I lean somewhat more towards sounds/aesthetics rather than precision at times but it’s still something I very much ponder over.
And yes more reading equals better word choice. It is integral.
I think word choice matters. George Orwell emphasizes it in his essay 'Politics and the English Language.'
I just think people don't want to bother themselves with choosing the perfect word. As it is, picking the right word forces you to think. Stopping to think, I think, is a burden too big for many of us to do multiple times a day.
And congratulations on raising your kids right.
I am always on this rule for those with English as Second Language: if you can't pick the right words, keep it clear and simple but not brevity for its sake.
Precision, poetic effect and expediency are always going to be battling it out when it comes to word choice. But for whatever reason the current environment seems to favour that final, easier option.
And I suspect it’s why profanity is so rife- not as edgy rebellion or risky emphasis but simply as a quick and lazy filler to bulk out a statement. You know?
After further review, your statement TJB of "precision, poetic effect and expediency are always battling it out" and current times favor expediency could be hashed out in a major way writing wise and sociologically. What tips/tilts a society (or past societies) to poetic effect, versus swaying to precision? Indeed, what does word choice and selection say about society and the value/importance of our writings? What would Ong say about this when comparing to oral tradition societies? Just thinking out loud, but it feels good to be thinking....
Man, these are huge questions. Part of me thinks the very nature of certain languages tilts them one way or the other. But English is interesting as it is such a mongrel language that it can sway either way. What leads to that sway is beyond my ability to say, but in this present age our online overlords and general media landscape will be instrumental in (attempting to) dictate the direction. But we individuals always have a choice.
Agree with your points, it's exacerbated by social media and overuse of headers and headlines. Shrinking attention spans make it worse.
Shrinking attention span is the killer. Which is why I am always pleased when people both take the effort to leave thoughtful comments here after reading my often dense pieces. Shows there is still hope!
As self appointed "attention sheriff" (mainly for myself), I have noted over the last few months with the use of a new pad how you can get "vocabulary erosion" on even important emails because over time you increasingly succumb to the word suggestions. The suggestions just keep coming, offering the path of least resistance with minimal typing, and distracting from your train of thought. Here is an exercise: When you are looking for the right word while typing, how often is the infernal computer suggestion right? What if you just wrote a message using the electronic suggestions? Would "infernal" have popped up in the previous sentence? What if ALL your thoughts were limited to the first page of an "Oogle" search engine suggestion....wait...has it already happened? Love the essay and comments. As Trility said last week TJB, your words often portray the hidden unspoken internal zeitgeist for many of your readers.
Yeah, it's funny how these thoughts of vocabulary can lead you to wondering just how much we are controlled by our devices.
People say that 1984 is Orwells masterwork on authoritarianism but in truth it is his essay Politics and the English Language. Well worth a read that one.
Thanks for the great comment.
Very interesting, except that I don't actually agree with your footnote #2, that there are lots of synonyms in English. I tend towards the view, put forward by the writer Richard Nilsen that there are no synonyms at all -- see https://terryfreedman.substack.com/p/mind-your-language :-)
Could it be that it is much better to ELI5 or ELI14 or whatever, such that it is easily understood for those who are of different culture but is accepting of reading other peoples perspectives? Perhaps a non-loaded version of "plain English"? https://www.plainlanguage.gov/
I’ll definitely give that piece of yours a read, suspecting that you (and Richard Nilsen) may well have a point there.
Thanks for reading.
Very thoughtful and true. I wish also more lawyers would be less clever and more intelligent. Our job is to work with abstract words and define them.
Thanks Olaf, glad you enjoyed. Of course, I wrote this from the lens of my own experience but it comes as no surprise to me that lawyers also fall foul of this dynamic.
Thanks for reading.
Exactly that! Unboxing only applies to opening up the packaging of gadgets for a YouTube audience it seems. Which is a shame as there are plenty more metaphorical boxes which need to be either broken down on ignored.