A comment I made on a thoughtful post at Doc Searls’ blog set off this line of reasoning.

It was about I.Q. (intelligence quotient) - and what it’s good for. Doc thinks it’s often (ab)used in way that’s harmful to kids. I feel it is indicative of potential.

In his 1983 book, “Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences”, Howard Gardner described 8 domains of intelligence:

- linguistic
- logical-mathematical
- spatial
- musical
- bodily-kinesthetic
- intrapersonal
- interpersonal
- naturalistic

‘Intelligence’ implies innate ability or potential. However, it does not guarantee performance. That’s a limitation of the scope of application of I.Q. test results.

Applied ‘intelligence’ results in wisdom and experience. And in the real world, that is more valuable - just as results will always outweigh promise or projections.

And wisdom is not exclusively in the domain of the ‘intelligent’. With a low I.Q. but rich experience, you may be much wiser than many ‘geniuses’.

An example may explain better. Let’s say your ‘musical I.Q.’ is low. A person with higher scores will run circles around you in a musical sense, effortlessly.

But you can match - or even exceed - their performance, except it will take you hard work, training, and a lot more ‘effort’ to do it.

If you’re a tennis fan and are old enough to remember them, the classic case studies would be John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl - the ‘artist’ and the ‘machine’.

Also, an ‘intelligent’ musician will not reach levels of excellence instinctively alone - unless that innate potential is harnessed, refined and enhanced by practice and training.

Only then will it become ‘wisdom’ - and not stagnate as just ‘intelligence’.

However, by knowing where one lies on an ‘intelligence scale’, it may be possible to structure and focus energies and ambitions to maximize one’s potential more… um… well…

Intelligently?

Share your thoughts about wisdom vs. intelligence - and any personal anecdotes from your own past.