There is a concept of “multiple intelligences” within the psychology discourse. Essentially, it says that intelligence cannot be based purely on IQ, but 8 other factors like interpersonal intelligence, spatial intelligence, etc. need to be included. I agree with this, and I have expounded on this theory that people should be judged primarily on their stronger intelligences within their fields of work and study. For instance, Amy Winehouse would be considered “musically smart”, so maybe her mishaps in the interpersonal realm should not affect her career.
Naturally this doesn’t always apply, like when a scandal affects the majority of the public. [see Bill Clinton]. But a certain group of professionals, namely athletes, should be seen as bodily-kinesthetically intelligent, and if they’re lacking in the social department so be it.
Which brings me to Mr. Woods.
CBS NEWS
NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2010
Did Tiger's Body Language Betray Him?
Expert: It Made His Mea Culpa Seem Staged, Too-Rehearsed
There is a lot of scrutiny on whether or not his apology in Friday’s press conference was sincere or contrived. Does it matter? He made the statement, and obviously he’s not an actor or improvisational artist. To go into a press conference cold would have been disastrous. So I’m sure he had some help preparing, but that doesn’t mean it should change the outcome of his words. Not to mention he had quite some time to practice before going public. So judge the guy all you want on his lifestyle choices, but not the way he apologized.
And back to my point about the intelligences. I think that if the public is to pass judgment on certain “smarts”, then the athletes should keep that in mind as well. Yes they have been extremely successful in their fields, but this whole “god-complex” that so many of them have is extremely irritating.
Sir Charles, I know you were a great basketball player in your day. Yet you are still a US citizen and can’t just use your name to get out of charges for drunk driving with simultaneous sexual acts. Nothing personal Barkley, I’m just using you as a scapegoat for so many athletes that have that same trait.
Sports figures are important to our society for entertainment value. But society and the sports stars alike just need to keep in mind the limits of that spheres of influence.
I really like this take on qualifying intelligence by distinguishing between types of intelligence.
ReplyDeleteBut as much as it vindicates the scandals of public figures/celebrities from Barkley to Winehouse, I think we need to consider whether or not we are willing to determine a person's intelligence in 8 separate arenas - and what this will mean for everyday people, AS WELL as public figures, with regard to taking responsibility for one's actions.
For example, should we let Amy Winehouse off the hook for her (self-)destructive behavior by saying she has little interpersonal intelligence?
It sounds like an easy excuse for a lot of bad actions, and while it may be a partial justification, I personally feel that distinguishing between types of intelligence can never wholly justify wrong-doing. (To be fair, however, I have never considered it in light of those with mental disabilities.)
I agree that an individual when assessing their performance in their profession should be judged based on their intelligent specific to their job requirements. If an employee in a law firm was not intelligent and screwed up a bunch of cases, you might call that person a poor lawyer. Now, if that individual had a poor work ethic, did not care about his or her job, and was a jerk to everyone in the office, that might be an entirely different intelligence to be judged. In such a case, rather than referring to the individual as a bad lawyer, you might refer to that person as a bad employee.
ReplyDeleteAs for Tiger Woods...great golfer, great athlete, but terrible face guy for athletics, golf and the PGA.