Learning and Intelligence:
I have a saying on my wall at work. It says, “Knowledge tears the world
apart. Wisdom makes it whole.” That is from an African tribal proverb. I expanded upon that and continued,
“Intelligence is the ability to use knowledge to gain wisdom. True learning is the practice of
intelligence.” That was written many
years ago. Today my understanding has
developed some. I would amend it to say
that true learning is acquiring the intelligence to incorporate knowledge into
wisdom and to then disseminate wisdom into positive technologies. Technology in this sense isn’t limited to
electronics or even machines, but to the practice of making a useful and
productive difference with the development and use of available physical,
mental, systemic, and influential resources.
Knowledge that doesn’t lead to wisdom is nothing more than
empty facts and concepts. While the
regurgitation of such might seem impressive, it doesn’t make a positive
difference unless you are taking a scholastic test. Wisdom takes the disparate facts and concepts
and combines and develops them into the understanding which can lead to a
positive difference. Even then, until
that wisdom or understanding is translated into objects, behaviors, and
attitudes (technology) that really do result in positive developments, the
wisdom is empty. The true value of the
guru on the mount isn’t in what he or she says, but in what difference their
“wisdom” makes once the supplicant comes down off the mountain and makes day to
day changes to thoughts and behaviors.
It can be understood, then, that true intelligence isn’t
measured in the knowledge a person can recall and express. It is only partially exhibited in the wisdom
and deeper understanding they develop
from the knowledge they have acquired.
Ultimately, it is demonstrated in the positive difference that is made
from the dissemination and application of that wisdom to themselves, others,
and the world around them.
Our education system seems weighted towards rewarding those
who can acquire and demonstrate knowledge.
It should, in addition, expand recognition to those who are able to
transform that knowledge into measurable wisdom. The highest reward would then be reserved for
those who demonstrate the application of their wisdom into technologies that
serve the world around them.
How might that work?
Here are some simplified examples applied across some different
disciplines:
Math, Physics, and Chemistry: Like many, I was not a big fan of story
problems. That said, learning how to
manipulate formulas correctly without tying those formulas to application
examples would seem to strike at the heart of what I’m concerned about. All of our learning should be focused on how
to apply what we learn--if not to something the student will occasionally face,
at least to something concrete enough that they can see why there is value in
learning the formulas. I hated high
level math and chemistry because all it seemed to be were rules and methods for
moving numbers and symbols around on a page.
Physics was a little better, but often deteriorated to merely a
different form of math. Problem solving
should be the focus of our STEM education, rather than problem solving be a
method to get the right equation and answer on a test.
English and literature:
The best English teacher I had threw out the sentence diagrams and
endless grammar and taught us what and how our words communicated. If you want to say this, then here is how you
approach it. If you want to communicate
this, then here are the basic rules and reason that governs your
communication. She even told us we could
break some rules if we did it on purpose and if it accomplished the purpose of
what we were trying to communicate.
Literature is too often presented as classical stories that students are
forced to read and then regurgitate facts about the plot and characters. The next level would be to try and foster an
understanding of what the writer wanted to communicate in the story, how the
characters’ actions and motives lead to the consequences seen, and what we
learned from the story that might change how we approach our own challenges and
joys in life. Taken from that
perspective, even younger children could get much more out of literature and, I
might add, more quickly learn to distinguish between really good writing and
simple fluff.
Some who agree with me otherwise may object to my thesis
because it doesn’t address the valuable knowledge and experience that wouldn’t
seem to directly lead to technology.
What about music, literature, classical studies and other so-called
liberal arts? This is a valid
criticism. I would like to learn Latin,
be able to discourse on classical philosophies and comparative religions. I want to be exposed to great painting,
sculptures, fine music, and other ennobling and uplifting experiences. There is more to life than STEM
knowledge. I would only say that I think
these are also useful and do lead to valid technologies by sharpening and
increasing the value of our primary tool, our intellect. These classical disciplines help shape our
creativity and expand our perspectives, thus increasing our capacity to achieve
greater intelligence and more effectiveness in all other pursuits. So, don’t get me wrong, I am all for any
person’s exposure to more classical pursuits.
I think it is a shame that our school systems seem to be moving away
from these things to a focus on solely STEM stuff and sports.
