How do we define intelligence in the realm of academia? Let us say that the context is a seminar course where engagement with provided literature is absolutely crucial. Then, as the class is held at the selected time, all students in the class engage in discourse with guide from the professor. Student A is tasked with elaborating their understanding of the reading–a summarization. Student B relates the reading to an experience from high school and shows passion about the subject, but the anecdote stays closely related to the general consensus of the class. Student C and D repeat similar words. Then, student E speaks. There is no reception of their words and no discussion is held beyond a general response no longer than a minute. The professor does not reciprocate passionately. Can we make the assumption that this individual is not as intelligent as the other students whose words and concepts about the readings were more understood or more efficiently communicated? No, absolutely not. 

 

Students A to D consume only the required readings. And so in that, their concepts and response to the readings are herd appropriately and generally accepted. However, Student E consumed the required readings and attended additional lectures and consumed other readings to broaden their horizon, but they were not understood. That is because, Student E’s depth of work expands beyond the settled domain, and when a question is proposed of concepts unfamiliar and beyond the required readings, confusion fills the low ceiling room. 

 

Intelligence is commonly understood to be quantitative paired with emotional intelligence. However, in this case, I believe intelligence can not be measured in the case of numbers but posses qualitative qualities. Students A to D are intelligent for showcasing their understanding of what they are told to consume. Student E is arguably more intelligent for showcasing concepts that seem to be unrelated to the material to the audience but has lots of relations to the required material. If Student E consumes enough material in time, they will ultimately come to an in depth understanding of the topic. But what separates Student E from the rest is their desire to consume material that others can not arrive to conventionally. It is the task of the Student to be able to effectively communicate the unfamiliar concepts and put it into context with the original material. The interesting topic about all this is the ability to arrive to a set of information conventionally. Students A to D, with time, will arrive at the level of knowledge and information as the Instructor has laid the foundations to. But Student E, with time, will not only arrive to the conclusions and discoveries of the given information, will arrive to something much more meaningful to their volcanic desires. Having genuine intelligence, is to be misunderstood.