Just Brilliant

Two TV interviews over the weekend have brought mind a theme that I have mulled, off and on, for years now. First was Friday night's ABC interview with self-described "brilliant" actor Charlie Sheen. Second was last night's 60 Minutes interview with "brilliant" author Christopher Hitchins. As the quotation marks indicate, I take issue with the wanton throwing about of the term brilliant. Charlie Sheen's freak show and ravings have dwarfed any contributions he ever made to the field of acting (using the term loosely when you are being paid a fortune to play a milder version of yourself on a sitcom). Christopher Hitchins, who is clearly a lot better educated and probably IQ smarter than most of us, is apparently not smart enough to avoid falling into the trap of overestimating the value of his intelligence. He is not smart enough to avoid being arrogant. Plus, he supported the Iraq war.

People describe others as brilliant all the time--even people that are clearly bad actors (not in the performing sense). When I taught elementary school, I had a student whose parents insisted he was rude, disruptive and under-achieving mainly because he was so much more intelligent than all the other kids. He was just so bored that all he could do was act out. And, he was bright. IQ-wise, he was equally as bright as another kid in the same class who did all his work, got on well with others and for whom I devised advanced work that he could do just for fun. Now, THAT was pretty smart. As young as he was, I could tell he was going places. The other one was headed for failure and juvenile detention.  In the same vein, I've known more than a few women who praise of the intelligence of men who treat them badly. For the life of me, I cannot see anti-social as smart or a by-product of smart. To me, behaving like an ass is reflective of stupidity and using intelligence as an excuse for that is providing them a cop out. I recognize that what is happening here is divergent definitions of intelligence: raw IQ smarts verses social intelligence. Many people separate the two. I do not.

I contend that you cannot validly be described as brilliant if you cannot navigate your way our of a paper bag when it comes to functioning reasonably, responsibly, fairly and ethically with other people. Of course, valuing social intelligence over intellectual intelligence has been proved to have its downsides, too--reference the appeal to many (never me) of George W. Bush. But to be called truly brilliant in my books you need both. Behaving in ways that defeat your own goals, no matter the reasons, is simply not smart. And if you can't see your way clear to self-correction, you are not that smart. You might be exceptionally good at some things, but I won't give you the gold star.

Functioning intelligently in the world requires seeing the big picture, getting out of your own way, getting over yourself, recognizing the value of others, improving yourself, continually learning and living life with purpose. I think this is why I have trouble with the cults of acclaimed actors, artists, thinkers and writers--those perceived as elite. People think the statement, "oh, but he's brilliant," can override a multitude of flaws. I do not. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate their contributions, their moments of innovate thinking, acting, writing--brilliance, even. But truly bright people are thoughtful, measured, self-aware and ready for improvement every day, not just in flashes. They are the people around you who have it together--either having avoided pitfalls in life altogether or having learned from mistakes. They are the ones you like to be with because they know how to be in company. In short, I think how well you conduct your life, how much real value you bring to the table, the kind of company you keep and the kind of company you are, are the strongest indicators of your intelligence.