The Willing Intelligence
As I continue to work on having useful, rich conversations and make relevant discriminations between this and that, I’ve come across yet another poverty-stricken aspect of the modern English language: “intelligence”, our ability to talk about the capacity of human beings to move through the world competently and with bright questing minds.
In the culture of the I.Q. test, and owing to the amount of times government agents (also known as teachers) have analyzed and judged us, it doesn’t surprise me that we have such a poor vocabulary for speaking about this subject usefully.
Most folks with some amount of curiosity have come to the conclusion, at least, that humans can have multiple forms of intelligence. Musical, Emotional, Spatial, Mathematical, Linguistic, Kinesthetic, and many more, surely.
And yet at the core of this discrimination of intelligence, we continue to call some folks dumb (whether mathematically, or otherwise), and some folks smart.
I think this discrimination still fails to usefully talk about this issue.
As I continue to work with the “Where Are Your Keys?” community mentoring tools, and play (in language) with hundreds of people, of varying ages and temperaments, in a highly structured environment, for hundreds of hours, I have begun to feel I have enough useful observations to put together a way of looking at intelligence that I can actually apply to my life, and accrue benefit from.
I no longer believe in multiple intelligences; I’ve seen too many linguists struggle with the language game to believe in that simplistic explanation. Something else sits at the core of what it means to have a bright, questing mind, and the ability to quickly absorb new understandings.
I believe it comes down to “willingness”. Or even better, let’s capitalize it: “Willingness”.
“Willingness”, as I intend to coin the term, means the willingness of a human being to move. I mean movement in every possible dimension – emotional, physical, mental and more.
By moving my mind, my body, my emotions, my social environment, my values, my voice, I quickly absorb new skills as they map onto me in all those dimensions.
This to me further illuminates the danger of fundamentalism in any sphere. I may “believe” in the collapse of civilization, the fundamental insanity of industrial culture, the wisdom and vitality of traditional/primitive living skills, all things that one could argue a curious, aware person would begin to observe, but if my “belief” causes me to fix a position, or become rigid in my “correctness” and “rightness”, and see these things as unchanging, unarguable truths…
Well…
Then I’ve ceased to move, haven’t I?
I believe modern culture, especially as articulated by its recent apologists and thinkers such as Aristotle (yes, Aristotle came late to the scene of civilized endeavor – the memes existed long before him), believes the world is most safe, most sane, most successful, when it appears unchanging, carved from marble, easily categorizable, and behind glass. Like meat in a butcher’s case, or a courtroom, or a man in uniform.
To me, however, these characteristics indicate a society at its most unstable, its most traumatized, its most fragile and desperate. Though folks like Aristotle believe that the world contains countless objects with unchanging essences (plumbers, politicians, sentient beings, unsentient beings, supposed “dead matter” such as rocks and stars and water), the empirical (and to many professional scientists at this time in history, the “scientific”) preponderance of evidence points to a world in a flux, where nothing “is” as it seems.
To live in accord with this dynamic flux, means to “move”.
A mind (and a body, and a heart, and so on…) willing to move in accord with this dynamic flux, will most readily adapt and thrive. A mind that moves a certain amount, if willing to move even more, will thrive yet more.
The willingness to move, not the movement itself, indicates intelligence. The movement of yesterday may not match the moving universe today.
So, friends and readers, I encourage you keep moving, keep looking, keep dancing, keep talking, keep listening. Share your insights with each other.
We’ll all get there together.
September 29th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
I’d like to tie this conversation in with another that’s been on my mind of late, if that’s cool.
To quote:
“…British psychologist John Sloboda conducted a study of musical talent. The group looked at two hundred and fifty-six young musicians [...] drawn from élite music academies and public-school music programs alike.
‘What we found was that the best predictor of [musical aptitude] was the number of hours practiced,’ Sloboda says. This is, if you think about it, a little hard to believe. We conceive musical ability to be a ‘talent’—people have an aptitude for music—and so it would make sense that some number of students could excel at the music exam without practicing very much. Yet Sloboda couldn’t find any. The kids who scored the best on the test were, on average, practicing eight hundred per cent more than the kids at the bottom.”
Malcolm Gladwell, “The Examined Life”
December, 2001 New Yorker Article
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/12/17/011217crat_atlarge#ixzz0yrH7svWg
I think that willingness is where our skills gain their adaptability and breadth. In practice, and in effort, is where they develop their specialization and depth.
That’s not to suggest a dichotomy, or to contradict what you are saying, but to propose another dimension. When I read your post, I was thinking, “yes! Also, practice!” It is willingness and hard work that make us the capable, skilled individuals we are.
There’s a similar study that was done that basically said: there is only one ingredient required to make you a virtuoso at any given skill, and that is ten thousand hours of practice.
Thoughts?
September 30th, 2010 at 9:07 am
I love your addition, Joe.
For I long time I’ve doubted the whole “talent” paradigm too. So that article really rung true with me.
I’ve also watched some people pound away at practicing in all kinds of spheres, and get no where. I think this situation inspired the saying “perfect practice makes perfect” (as opposed to simply “practice makes perfect”).
But what does “perfect practice” look like? Does it look like a robot perfectly imitating, over and over, the exact movement/skill it wishes to master?
Through the influence of the WAYK game, I’ve come to realize that “perfect practice” looks like a human being sensitively, playfully, questingly exploring forward into a skill. Punctuated with frequent laughter, often requiring companionship (Mirror Neurons!).
Rather than rote practice, to me “perfect practice” means highly sensitive, responsive, play, centered around the target ability.
It means a diversity of approaches aimed at encouraging the player to keep practicing essentially the same thing over and over, but from different angles and attitudes, to keep it fresh and alive.
For example, we’re in the middle of applying “fluency play” to old-time fiddle music, and parkour (free-running). We want to keep it fresh and alive, but we know we need to master some core skills by practicing them over and over. But if we get “bored”, then the skill becomes stale. If we overwhelm ourselves, then we’ll crash and burn.
So how do we practice something, maintaining the vitality, even if we practice 800% more than any normal sane person? We’ve (I believe) essentially mastered this issue as it pertains to language, but everything else – who knows!
Thanks again Joe.
October 1st, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Joe, The “10,000-Hour Rule” study you quote turns out to be a book called “Outliers: The Story of Success,” written by Malcolm Gladwell. The phrase “10,000-hour Rule” comes from Malcolm Gladwell, and he was drawing on research done by Anders Ericsson.
Willem, The long wait was worth it, this article is fantastic. I’ve been telling people recently that they have to change their body before they can change their mind–that change in action precedes change in thought. Now I can sum that up as “move your body, move your mind.”
Thank you.
October 1st, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Joe, I clearly didn’t read carefully, you referenced the “10,000-Hour Rule.” Please excuse my duplication of effort.
October 4th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
There’s a book called The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle that’s devoted to describing what “perfect practice” looks like. I don’t know how successfully as I’m only part way through, but I’ve enjoyed what I’ve read so far (despite the prominence of the T word).
This post has me thinking a lot about motivation, which in turn leads to the psychology and inevitable pseudo-science of influence, and finally just to paging Dr. Crowley on the white courtesy phone… ” causing change to occur in conformity with the Willingness,” perhaps. Not very coherent so far, as you can tell. I’ll do some more thinking and come back.
October 4th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
In teaching my second year Chinese Medicine pathology course, I have been working with some of these ideas. One concept that has recurred repeatedly is “we all get there together.” Great post Willem.
October 5th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Fascinating insight, Willing Willem!
Now I want to explore where/how this applies: to me, my interests, and circles of associates… and see how it holds up…
——
Just heard a piece on NPR regarding the crisis of (human) language extinctions across the world. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130242203
(Listen or check the transcript for the whole piece)
David Harrison: “So the key to saving a language is to create prestige of the language in the eyes of the very youngest speakers.”
“And here he is making up hip-hop in a language that is endangered. And he’s figuring out a new way to expand the influence of the language and to make it seem cool so that the other young people in the community will continue using it. And this makes it worth the trip, really, to see something wonderful like this being done with a small, endangered language.”
What appears to be going on (in this example) is kids finding their own value/prestige in the language, doing things that interest them with the language – moving and practicing and willing to try things in new directions – while having fun!
-Jim
October 15th, 2010 at 5:58 am
Have you run across the writing of Susan Weed? Reading your post reminded me of her book “Healing Wise.” She applies this idea (or something very similar ) to health, and calls it flexibility. To paraphrase inadequately, she defines a healthy person as someone with the flexibility to live with sickness and see it as one of many parts of their whole, part of the balance, an essential part of life. She questions or throws out the idea of sickness in our scientific sense, instead seeing it as a time of possibly uncomfortable but important transformation. As long as the person has the flexibility to move.
Thanks for all your posts.
October 18th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Thanks everyone for your comments.
Avery, in response to your question, I have read Susun Weed. I do think she has a similar point to make. Willingness and flexibility do have a lot in common!
November 4th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Well, I’ve cleared my mind a bit and am not feeling as mad as I was before, so here’s what I wish to share.
I’ve come to the conclusion that I should believe in what doesn’t close my mind as well as trusting perception. And that’s why I’ve struggled so much with reading primitivist viewpoints–my perceptions have always been different than theirs. I’ll read the works of a primitivist like yourself, Jason, Ran, and then experience something totally different in my own world. Example: Derrick Jensen talks about his own experiences of talking to other animals and plants. I have never had, or either cannot remember, experiences of talking to animals before.
My problem with believing in the inherent unsustainability of civilization, agriculture, cities, business, etc. is that I perceive those ideas as closed minded ideas. If I believe they are inherently unsustainable, then I’ve basically closed my mind to the possibility of sustainability. If I view agriculture as unsustainable, I’ve closed my mind to the possibility it might be based on someone else’s research. I myself can’t know, prove, or disprove these ideas, I can only read, and therefore, I really can’t make a conclusion as to who I believe is right, having read many beliefs both ways, arguing for the sustainability of farming, civ, cities.
I just want to keep my mind open, and, as you said, keep that willingness to Move. I’m not saying your perceptions are wrong, either, I’m just trying to keep open. Personally, I believe that anyone’s perception may not be the way of the world, but can still be seen as true as they did perceive it that way. Sadly, though, although people like Jensen can perceive and have experiences talking with animals and stars, not everyone can say they’ve had or remember those experiences.
November 4th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
James,
Thanks for continuing to share your thoughts. What you’ve written inspires me to respond; of course I can’t help but share my strongly held point of view. I hope you’ll continue taking these as just one person’s perception – no matter how strongly held!
You’ve mentioned me in the same company as other “rewilding” authors. Although I appreciate (and have dear friendships) with some of the authors you mentioned, I have noticed that I have a fairly particular point of view, not shared in process by authors, even if they agree with some of my conclusions. I see the world as far more in flux than most people, and though sometimes I admit I can emit an evangelical passion for what matters to me, in the end I mainly want to rattle the bars of the cage enough to wake others experiencing the same thing, but too embarrassed or self-doubting to admit.
For those not experiencing the world like me, I hope that they keep looking for the support they need for their own perspective, and not adjust themselves to mine because of the passion I have for it. I’ve always stayed very clear with visitors to this blog (as I hope I have with you) – I cannot live your life, or perceive for you. But I want to support you doing that in your own way.
You said:
“I’ve come to the conclusion that I should believe in what doesn’t close my mind as well as trusting perception.”
I agree that closing one’s mind to the universe of possibilities can create catastrophes – for me, my conclusions about civilization represent searching for the course most likely (in terms of my degrees of confidence, not factual reality) to create joy and life for my family and the land that feeds me, not so much about having a closed or unclosed mind (or a belief). Up till now, everything I have observed supports my conclusions. However, if I saw new evidence suggesting that civilization can “fly”, I’ll give it a chance, if I think not doing so will impact the quality of life around me and within me.
You said the words “should believe”. For me, the word “should” conceals a thought process. It has no content on its own (perhaps it means, “it is good to…”, what what does that mean either?); to me it conjures the image of a wagging finger, not a reasoned thought process. And “believe” – personally, I don’t believe in anything, really. I observe, and I value some things that I experience (and want more of them), but I can’t go so far as belief.
Because you value the observational mode, I suspect that these seemingly non-observational words cover a thought process in you too – unless they have some other useful meaning for you.
I feel curious about your comments about having a hard time proving or disproving the unsustainability of civilization. You say you can only read, not perceive these things.
Everywhere I’ve lived, I’ve experienced the spread of devastation, the loss of cherished wild places, the collapse of social groups (people caring about each other). I have Native friends who bear the heritage of the last few centuries of horrible genocide. The overwhelming tide of this evidence pushes me to my conclusions. I understand that you probably haven’t experienced the fouling of landscape, the demise of relationships, and genocide. I don’t quite know how you can avoid seeing this things; or perhaps you have a higher standard for drawing a conclusion? Perhaps your autism conceals some things while making others clearly observable (and perhaps invisible to me).
You mentioned Derrick Jensen’s “talking with animals” experiences. I’ve had these too, but I can’t say I remember having them until I started tracking animals. I don’t know if I would have ever have had them if I hadn’t started tracking. Perhaps you’d need to track animals to begin this too.
Perhaps some of our perceptions come down to what we feel curious about. I’ve always felt curious about the unsaid word, the hidden object, and the distant storm. I think I’ve felt this way due to always feeling out of sync with how this culture works, and my ability to have a rich life. If I hadn’t felt out of sync, I would have looked no further, I feel certain.
I can easily see how two people would have two experiences of civilization; for one it creates life, and for the other it destroys it.
November 5th, 2010 at 7:30 am
I will be on the road for the next 10 days–cannot make a response until then. But I will make a response after that.
November 5th, 2010 at 7:55 am
But I will say this:
Your comment:
I agree that closing one’s mind to the universe of possibilities can create catastrophes – for me, my conclusions about civilization represent searching for the course most likely (in terms of my degrees of confidence, not factual reality) to create joy and life for my family and the land that feeds me, not so much about having a closed or unclosed mind (or a belief). Up till now, everything I have observed supports my conclusions. However, if I saw new evidence suggesting that civilization can “fly”, I’ll give it a chance, if I think not doing so will impact the quality of life around me and within me.
My response:
I admire your perception–believe me, I do. But my perception in this regard has been the opposite. My family feels pride in being civilized, and to tell them about rewilding causes them to feel anger and anguish. They refuse to be fed by the land, instead they prefer being fed by the store. They believe that rewilding is a bunch of nonsense and unrealistic for their own lives. It may have caused you joy in your family–it has caued me nothing but anguish and turmoil as they live the way they wish to live.
I also have perceived concepts of rewilding as dichotomies, and personally do not trust them. I may be a domesticated human, but I still consider myself a human. Rewilding as the polar opposite of domestication, in my opinion and perception, seems to me as another “dichotomy” that appears to be false–I view people as people, not “wild,” or “domesticated” or “savage” or “indigenous,” just people. There are many differences in what would be called “wild” people, and diversity in “domesticated” people as well (my sister once went to China, another civilized culture, and felt like she was in a totally different culture than ours.) In addition, I also disagree heavily with the idea that all wild humans were animist, and that animism is the only religion that exists–most of the people I know as Native Americans, and interviews I’ve read from Native Americans and Australian Aborigines, perceive themselves not as animists, but following their own native religion, and have told me that their belief is that calling them “animist” is another way the White man has falsely perceived their actual true religious beliefs.
I also have read a series of books–one particularly, Charles C. Mann’s 1491–a book about Native American civilization, where the case is strongly made that some Native American civilizations existed that could in fact “fly,” and that “indigenous” does not mean “uncivilized”–many indigenous civilizations existed as well.
And I also admire your open mindedness. I do not expect you to agree with me, but I do admire your willingness to listen to my perceptions. I’m off to visit my grandfather for the next 10 days. Truthfully, I enjoy this discussion, and I apologize for lumping you among other primitivist authors–I actually now see you as far more open minded than almost every other person I’ve heard called a primitivist I’ve had a conversation with.
November 10th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Well, it looks like my trip will actually last longer, until November 20. My Internet access is sporadic due to my Grandfather’s limited service, but I do want to continue this discussion afterwards. Thank you so much for being open minded and for your thoughtful replies.
Indeed, I do agree heavily with your values of Family, and my long visit to my grandfather has emerged due to my own family’s refusal to look after him in his old age. We have enjoyed our time together, and I have valued him in a way my own Family has not.
November 15th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
After soul-searching with my grandfather, I have decided to end my comments on this website for now. I am moving with my grandfather permanently to help take care of him, and I will do so in a family that does not want to look after him, and would rather abandon him that look after him in his old age. He is a wise man, yet I am one of the few members of his family to see his wisdom.
You have a philosophy and beliefs based on your perception. My perception is quite different, and to follow in your footsteps would cause me to go against the values of my Family. In addition, I’ve grown up in a suburb of a major city (Chicago) built after World War II, so I have not seen much of the destruction that you have–I’ve seen nothing but a prosperous town and suburb nearby a thriving city. To me, all of the stories of genocide of indigenous people and environmental destruction are in many ways abstractions, as I have never witnessed them myself except for the development of prairies in my Chicago suburb. But despite those developments that I never supported, my family is proud to live in the suburbs of a major city, and will not leave the Chicago area. (My parents both lived in New York City for their adult lives beforehand, and are proud city folk.)
And I have not done any tracking and currently would not be able to, as my family has no interest in hunting, camping, and tracking and I would not feel safe doing so alone.
I must go off and live my life in a way that benefits me. Thank you for understanding differences in perception. I must end this discussion so I can go back and live with my Family. I cannot rewild my speaking or my way of life, but I can at least enjoy my domesticated Family, Community, and friends.