FunnyIndian.com: Indian Comedian / Desi Comedian Rajiv Satyal

Day 251/-481: Sunday, May 20, 2007: How Smart Am I?

May 28th, 2007

Sahar and I met up w/ my friend, Vinh, for lunch at this Brazilian Barbeque Buffet place in downtown Seattle. Vinh recently also left P&G to start his own business. The three of us all went for a walk thru downtown - down to Pike Place Market and even grabbed a cup at the original Starbucks - the mothership of the evil empire.

In the evening, I visited my friends, Matt & Lara. I’ve known Matt since 4th grade; Lara and he had their first child, Henry, 4 months ago… awww…

I had some driving time today so I was thinking about something: How would my life be different if I were 10 IQ points smarter? I had actually had this convo w/ my uncle a couple of weeks ago. He had said I’d likely be a lot less happier b/c geniuses tend to be miserable. (Don’t you love the implication that 10 more points gets me to that level? I mean, it does, but it’s quite presumptuous to write it like that.)

I guess I just wonder if I’d be able to accomplish more. Is how much you accomplish directly related to how smart you are? I suppose you have to then examine what exactly intelligence is. I’ve always said that intelligence is the speed of your processor whereas knowledge is the size of your hard drive. A pretty geeky analogy but I think it makes sense. Is intelligence related to speed? I would say it is, b/c IQ tests are timed - if given enough time, we all could likely do very well on them; it’s the ability to comprehend quickly and solve problems that, to me, reveals how intelligent a person is.

Of late, there has been a lot more emphasis put on EQ, or Emotional Quotient - your ability to deal effectively w/ other people is included in this. I think the difference b/w people of high IQ and high EQ is related to their ability to remove or erect barriers b/w “bins” of information: people w/ a high IQ have the ability to search & reapply - take what they learned in science class and somehow link that to something else they learned in history and make a connection. People w/ high EQs have the ability to do w/ the opposite when it comes to emotional things - they can isolate, for example, a fight w/ their girlfriend and not let that affect their dealings w/ their co-workers.

I’ve also heard that success is really the combination of desire, drive, and talent. Desire and drive initially sound similar, but the former refers more to the innate wanting of some goal, whereas drive is much more about how dedicated and disciplined you are in relation to the goal.

Intelligence has historically connoted book smarts. I’d say talent encompassees intelligence, among many other things. In fact, a Harvard researcher by the name of Howard Gardner had listed out 7 different types of intelligences and has considered expanding the list to 10. I used a site called Infed, which is sort of like another Wikipedia but w/ a narrower focus on education. The parts in italics are directly from the site. Here goes:

• Linguistic intelligence involves sensitivity to spoken and written language, the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence includes the ability to effectively use language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically; and language as a means to remember information. Writers, poets, lawyers and speakers are among those that Howard Gardner sees as having high linguistic intelligence. Rakesh, my brother, is probably a 10 on this scale - he quite easily learned and is fluent in French, Spanish, Italian, & English (obviously), has a working knowledge of German, but, to my parents’ dismay, not Hindi… he also possesses a great vocabulary and employs it w/ great ease. Being a comic, I have to have this kind of intelligence - I’m likely an 8.5 on this scale.

• Logical-mathematical intelligence consists of the capacity to analyze problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically. In Howard Gardner’s words, in entails the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically. This intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking. I was always good at math but certainly not great. I got As but not 100s, like some of my friends - and this was at a small (but good) public school in Fairfield, Ohio. In my opinion, common sense falls into this category, too, which I have, but which developed late. No one really believes me, but I actually woke up one summer day after my senior year in high school and had this weird feeling - and I knew what it was right away - I suddenly had common sense. I have no idea how I knew or even what this means, but it’s true. The only class I really blew away was Probability & Statistics. I got a high A in high school and think I got a 100 in the college level one. I would just look at the formulas and the problems and know what to do. I think I really could’ve been a very good prob & stat researcher. This was a class some of the smartest people in my class either failed out of or dropped. I remember their asking me, “HOW are you getting this?” It was the only time I felt like Good Will Hunting. I’d say I’m about a 7.5.

• Musical intelligence involves skill in the performance, composition, and appreciation of musical patterns. It encompasses the capacity to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms. According to Howard Gardner musical intelligence runs in an almost structural parallel to linguistic intelligence. I played the viola for years and sat 2nd or 3rd chair in most orchestras I was in, w/ usually an entire viola section of b/w 6 and 10. I was a whiz at sight reading and I did all of this without ever practicing. I probably pulled out my instrument about 10 times at home in the course of 7 years of playing. I also was decent at the recorder - remember those??? - and even taught myself to play a couple of pop songs on it w/o anyone teaching me. Finally, I have always had rhythm, including the ability to count, no matter how fast or slow the tempo. So, I’d say that, while I was by no means great at playing instruments, and I have absolutely no singing ability, that I’m far better than average - prolly a 7.

• Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entails the potential of using one’s whole body or parts of the body to solve problems. It is the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements. Howard Gardner sees mental and physical activity as related. I’m assuming both sports and activities like dancing are encompassed herein. If that’s the case, I could hold my own in any sport I ever tried. I have played tennis ever since 7th grade and, again, I never practiced. However, I only made varsity my senior year, not my sophomore year, like some of the aces. Most of the reason I was never great at sports was due to my size. I’ve always been coordinated w/ fast reflexes - I’ll challenge anyone to a game of ping-pong any day. And when I play pool or go bowling, I almost always win or come in the top couple of people (respectively - not too big an accomplishment to come in the top two when two are playing pool). As I was telling one of my friends recently (who’s a dancer), my biggest issue is that I don’t know where different parts of my body are. That sounds funny but when you’re like, “OK, tense up your abs,” it takes me a minute to get what you mean and then to execute it. This would imply that I’m pretty terrible at getting my mind to communicate w/ my body. So, I’d say, all told, I’m a 5.5.

• Spatial intelligence involves the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas. I needed more than this, so this site offered this up, as well: “…deals with the ability to perceive images. These children think in images and are usually the ones able to find missing objects due to their tremendous powers of visual recall. They may be the first to notice things that have been changed or rearranged. Many are earlier drawers–delighted with shapes, lines and colors. These folks are attracted to jigsaw puzzles, mazes, find the hidden picture puzzles and they love to construct things with blocks. They have an early sense of proportion and perspective. They are also good at reading and constructing maps and discerning objects as they might appear in three dimensional space. They are often referred to as daydreamers–starring off into space.” OK, got it now. I can read maps, have a very good sense of direction, am very observant (obviously - I’m a comic.), but I can’t really draw and for some reason, I wouldn’t say that I’m particularly spatial. I’ve read that women are better at spatial while men are better at linear, anyway. I’m about a 7.5.

• Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people. It allows people to work effectively with others. Educators, salespeople, religious and political leaders and counsellors all need a well-developed interpersonal intelligence. Yeah, I’m a 10. Ha. I’ve always said that I’m politically astute but not politically savvy, meaning that I always KNOW the right thing to say but I don’t always say it. But if we’re simply measuring one’s intuition into others’ thoughts and feelings, I’ve got this nailed. Since there are people who are true experts in this, like Dale Carnegie and Stephen Covey, let’s show a degree of humility - 9.5.

• Intrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one’s feelings, fears and motivations. In Howard Gardner’s view it involves having an effective working model of ourselves, and to be able to use such information to regulate our lives. Chalk up another 10. There’s a question on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator that asks whether you’re more observant or introspective. Hardest question on there for me. Out of the questions that determine if you’re Extroverted or Introverted, all 10 of mine went E. But I also spend a lot of time thinking about myself - one of the benefits of being such an egotist. OK, an egotist w/ a dose (but not a splash) of reality - 9.5.

• Other intelligences: Naturalist, Spiritual, Existential, and Moral are not part of the original 7. So, I’m going to fudge them together a bit here. Naturalist intelligence enables human beings to recognize, categorize and draw upon certain features of the environment. It “combines a description of the core ability with a characterization of the role that many cultures value.” This is a harder one to grasp - for more reading, see this link. This one will likely betray that my default is a 7, not a 5, since, a la Garrison Keillor, I must be above-average. The other factor that I use to calibrate is trying to summon whom I think would be a 10. I guess the Crocodile Hunter? Of course… never mind, that’s mean. I guess I’m a 7. Hard to say - I notice things in nature and was always drawn to astronomy and bigger things in the cosmos but have very little interest in animals and absolutely hate the field of biology. The last three are being considered for adding to the list but since they’re not, let’s not include them formally but let’s bump my last score up a bit, if for no other reason that hardly anyone will disagree that my ability to philosophize and “figure things out” is one of my greatest strengths. It appears that what Gardner and his researchers are trying to do is tie human intellectual ability w/ some kind of greater consciousness or awareness with respect to our surroundings - the “grand scheme of things,” if you will. So, given that this is that vague, it’s kind of hard to evaluate, but let’s say an 8.5.

So, if we weight them all equally, which is an assumption, my composite score is: 7.9375. Recalling the concept of “sig digs” from school, this rounds to a 7.9. That feels about right.

So, instead of IQ, maybe they should use this kind of score. I don’t know which one I’d want more ability in, then - I guess I’m happy w/ what I’ve got, since the ones I do well in are well-suited to being a comedian. And besides, it’s to some extent a balancing act: people who tend to be geniuses (altho my friend Devon Bush told me that there are only two fields of naturally-occurring geniuses: music and math) are likely highly-skilled in one but quite deficient in others. So, I’d say a 7.9 is probably pretty good no matter what. Of course, this is completely a self-rating based on a barely-working knowledge of the theory.

In the end, intelligence (or, as above, in the vernacular), talent, is one component - I think one’s desire and drive play equally large roles. With all the nature/nurture arguments, and whether greatness is born or learned, it’s what you do w/ it that counts. And naturally, the ex-factor here is LUCK.

Honestly, if you ask me, they should do what some schools already do w/ this information: teach different kids differently based on how they learn. And they should also measure how you do in terms of IMPROVING yourself, as long as you meet a baseline level. This may be the one thing that gym class had right - you got graded based on how many MORE sit-ups you did vs. your first day. Of course, some of us sandbagged it so we did 20 the first day and 50 the last… sometimes it’s good to be wise; other times, it’s good to be clever.

Entry Filed under: A Comic's Journey