Is it reasonable to think that intelligence is relative? The many areas of expertise and knowledge that exist is ever-expanding; it seems unfortunate to assume that society should limit who we would consider to be intelligent to criteria that has no boundaries.
Of all the people that I have known, I have yet to find a true jack-of-all-trades. The math genius of my second block class cannot build a table to save anyone’s life, but is still considered to be above average. On the other hand, the kid who sits in my fourth block class cannot solve simple integral notations nearly as fast as the latter student, but can construct beautiful wooden models and creations without instructions nor a second thought; he is still considered to be below his peers.
Is his aptitude for his craft overlooked? They both show the same level of intelligence, but in different areas. Are the arts considered to be below average? Why is the theoretical nature of mathematics considered to be above the physical nature of art? Even the character of art itself is intangible. The messages brought forth through every brush stroke, every wood carving, every plane of smooth clay is not lost upon the viewer if they take the time to consider the artist’s emotion. Is this consideration lost upon the criteria for intelligence as well?
Alas it is too late in the night to truly formulate what I wish to say but I can only hope that my message is not lost unto you, dear reader. Thank you for taking the time to read this.