A topic I have been thinking about for a while. I feel Intelligence started as an act against being ignorant, specifically around the pandemic. It did come from a good place, but got moulded into an outpouring of non-stop information. Being smart also comes from the feeling of FOMO, and a necessity to be taken seriously among peers. Is a person reading, or merely performing by being part of a conversation, because it sounds intelligent, to have opinions, and dominate conversations?
Also, I often see people struggle with combining intelligence and creativity (painting, sketching, or any other tactile work) under the same club. An artist is not often considered an 'intelligent' person. You hear terms like genius, yes, but a lot of them achieved that high status after their death.
TBH, this piece really made me want to sit in a room alone and scribble in my notebook.
I really appreciate the way you engaged with this and how you’re thinking about the layers of intelligence as both performance and inquiry. Because intelligence is a trait which can be expirienced both intefnal and external, it makes a great target for FOMO and performativity. But when does a meaningful come up in a conversation and when is it for self-portrayal?
That internal pull to retreat, to scribble alone in a notebook feels like a return to something more grounded and real. I think a lot of meaningful thought begins in those quieter, unobserved spaces. Thank you for taking the time to reflect so openly.
I’ve never seen intelligence broken down so clearly as both a cultural product and a lived experience.
You nailed how “being smart” today is less about knowledge and more about optics, how it looks, how it performs, how it sells. That shift feels so real, especially online.
Thank you so much! That really means a lot. I’ve been thinking a lot about how the performance of intelligence is evolving, especially online, so I’m glad that resonated with you.
“When intelligence becomes a brand, it also becomes a burden.” This nails it in one. Intelligence is not supposed to be constantly pruned or forced. It’s organic, stems from curiosity, where learning becomes a lifeline to learning about self and the world, an anchor into awareness that makes us understand the world better.
I do find the intellectual brands vs “real” intellectualism a fascinating observation (so much so, I’ve written two pieces at the subject). I think there’s a great deal of tense between the intellectual and independent rigour of academia and the more creative freewheeling intellectualism of creativity. As a former academic at Cambridge University, I would say the tension arises from the fact that many universities are struggling with their identity in the sense that student fees have shot up, but academics aren’t seeing the financial rewards. Meanwhile, creative intellectuals earn more through brand deals, but they don’t have the same rigour or liking for rules as academics.
That are fascinating observations, thank you for taking the time to write them down!
Your comment captures the duality of intelligence as a spectrum perfectly. Between the public and the individual, the curiously-flowing creativity and the strict rules of academia, there is much to be found and even more to be discussed. The tension you‘ve described are definitely part of the overall problem and misunderstandings about intelligence nowdays. I think it is crucial to actively engage in the debate and the definition(s) of intelligence. When a discussion is being held, there is (hopefully) one or multiple solutions to be found.
Great writing but is there a part 2? You have established intelligence as a brand but I kept waiting for you to make a point...or perhaps that was the point.
This was a great read!
A topic I have been thinking about for a while. I feel Intelligence started as an act against being ignorant, specifically around the pandemic. It did come from a good place, but got moulded into an outpouring of non-stop information. Being smart also comes from the feeling of FOMO, and a necessity to be taken seriously among peers. Is a person reading, or merely performing by being part of a conversation, because it sounds intelligent, to have opinions, and dominate conversations?
Also, I often see people struggle with combining intelligence and creativity (painting, sketching, or any other tactile work) under the same club. An artist is not often considered an 'intelligent' person. You hear terms like genius, yes, but a lot of them achieved that high status after their death.
TBH, this piece really made me want to sit in a room alone and scribble in my notebook.
I really appreciate the way you engaged with this and how you’re thinking about the layers of intelligence as both performance and inquiry. Because intelligence is a trait which can be expirienced both intefnal and external, it makes a great target for FOMO and performativity. But when does a meaningful come up in a conversation and when is it for self-portrayal?
That internal pull to retreat, to scribble alone in a notebook feels like a return to something more grounded and real. I think a lot of meaningful thought begins in those quieter, unobserved spaces. Thank you for taking the time to reflect so openly.
This was incredible!
I’ve never seen intelligence broken down so clearly as both a cultural product and a lived experience.
You nailed how “being smart” today is less about knowledge and more about optics, how it looks, how it performs, how it sells. That shift feels so real, especially online.
Thank you so much! That really means a lot. I’ve been thinking a lot about how the performance of intelligence is evolving, especially online, so I’m glad that resonated with you.
The pleasure is mine :)
“When intelligence becomes a brand, it also becomes a burden.” This nails it in one. Intelligence is not supposed to be constantly pruned or forced. It’s organic, stems from curiosity, where learning becomes a lifeline to learning about self and the world, an anchor into awareness that makes us understand the world better.
I do find the intellectual brands vs “real” intellectualism a fascinating observation (so much so, I’ve written two pieces at the subject). I think there’s a great deal of tense between the intellectual and independent rigour of academia and the more creative freewheeling intellectualism of creativity. As a former academic at Cambridge University, I would say the tension arises from the fact that many universities are struggling with their identity in the sense that student fees have shot up, but academics aren’t seeing the financial rewards. Meanwhile, creative intellectuals earn more through brand deals, but they don’t have the same rigour or liking for rules as academics.
That are fascinating observations, thank you for taking the time to write them down!
Your comment captures the duality of intelligence as a spectrum perfectly. Between the public and the individual, the curiously-flowing creativity and the strict rules of academia, there is much to be found and even more to be discussed. The tension you‘ve described are definitely part of the overall problem and misunderstandings about intelligence nowdays. I think it is crucial to actively engage in the debate and the definition(s) of intelligence. When a discussion is being held, there is (hopefully) one or multiple solutions to be found.
I agree, especially now with AI coming into the picture. What’s missing from public discourse right now is a public definition of an intellectual not one from a fashion house or “tastemaker” etc. I wrote a piece on Intellectualism 3.0 which touches on this: https://open.substack.com/pub/thebreakoutroom/p/intellectual-synthesis-30?r=4vrk&utm_medium=ios
Great writing but is there a part 2? You have established intelligence as a brand but I kept waiting for you to make a point...or perhaps that was the point.