In every society, you're going to find intelligent and stupid people. Sometimes, no matter how badly someone tries, stupid people just can't seem to get their shit together to form some intelligence. Also, intelligent people can't seem to become stupid - but they can turn to ignorance, keeping their intelligence on the backburner if they need it.
I think society has formed a different attitude towards stupidity which I find funny. I posted a question yesterday about which is worst: Ignorance, stupidity, bigotry, or hypocrisy. It was sort of a social experiment to find out what someone might think is the worst to be insulted as.
You can tell someone they're fat and ugly, they get sad. You call someone hypocritical, they get embarrassed. You call them bigoted, they might even be proud! But dear god call someone stupid and they go bat-shit insane bananas. I've done that on GaG alone - pointing out someone's stupidity if they become an asshat, when they didn't even read something simple in the first place. They're fine with arguing, but point out their stupid mistakes? Holy shit. World-war-fucking-three.
On the same scale - and I'm talking in recent decades - when complimenting, intelligence has taken a front seat. If you compliment someone on looks, they are flattered, but for having intelligence? - they wear it like a badge of honour.
It seems like it's the new-age thing to do, divide the stupid from the smart. Those who are struggling to be out of the stupid camp can't help but be stupid, and are becoming society's angry people. These are the ones committing road rage and doing other upsetting things. Their frustration to try and be intelligent - something they can't be -
makes them irate.
We are born with certain aptitudes, which we either foster or neglect -- the nature aspect of our intelligence, and yet others are completely acquired by practice and will alone, the nurture aspect. I think the way we throw around terms like intelligence and stupidity today is really more of a way of putting people in their place i. e. social one-upmanship. True intelligence comes from one's adaptability to the environment, the only way any species ever survives, and thus, manifests in a variety of forms, kind of like @CubsterShura said. I believe stupidity to be a certain obtuseness of spirit, not the absence of knowledge or skill. What I'm referring to are blunted and dulled senses versus a keenness/sharpness of mind. The quantification of IQ into measurable units is an attempt to monopolize intellect and human progress and redline/dismiss/exclude everything that's not within the scope of imagination of those who are designing those tests. That's why I rarely think grades or schooling alone are measure of intelligence. Nor does the lack of information signify stupidity. Again, I believe that both of those terms are decided by how we mentally digest what we've been presented with into a functional, useful, novel outcome. Can we actually use what we've learned. Can we acquire new information and formulate even more intricate question with what we already know. Have we been taught to teach ourselves. If you can answer these questions in the affirmative, chances are, you have a measure of intelligence.
Intelligence and stupidity aren't a social construct, but limiting our idea of intelligence definitely is a social construct. You're intelligent only if you have good grades. You can't be both intelligent and emotional. He is stupid or she is stupid. I believe most of us are intelligent in one way and this is what makes us all different. Like I'm a good student in class, but that boy in our class who fails all the time. But he's really funny and during sports if the whole team does what he says then they really very easily win. That's a form of his intelligence. I also can differentiate many similar looking trees that children in city mostly cannot do. I really feel like you depend a lot on your environment for expressing your intelligence in a specific way. For myself, I can come up with smart solutions to small problems that I'll let you know if you want to know. It's just my thought process that helped me so much.
Those with intelligence in one area have a very high potential to nail everything else if he wishes to, like he could have been a brilliant student if he studied. Your own wish to do something is a factor too. You can't judge a fish by how well it climbs a tree. Almost everyone is a genius.
I tend to go with the dictionary definition. Bing has a good delineation of each term:
Stupid - lacking intelligence or common sense:
Intelligence - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills
The terms themselves are socially constructed, just as any term humans come up with to define an external reality. So no intelligence and stupidity in and of themselves are not social constructs in that humans didn't design them. They are just certain realities and we are labeling it as a way to better understand eachother. That said on an individual basis what is deemed intelligent and what is deemed stupidity is often skewed.
People too often get caught up on terms, rather than looking at what's being defined. A social construct is something we create which "exists" solely because people agree to behave as if it exists, or agree to abide by certain rules. Like Laws are social constructs. They are not objective realities other than the fact we agree that they are as such. Currency is not objectively currency unless we agree on that idea. Those are social constructs. Stupidity and intelligence doesn't require either of us to agree upon or act as if is true, because they exist outside of us.
I totally agree with what @cipher42 has already said. It is both.
I would perhaps add to her comment that the way we measure intelligence is also socially constructed... or at least socially influenced. For example why do IQ tests look the way the do? Why do we make people tick boxes on a sheet of paper instead of, say, build something? Maybe there is a race of intelligent extraterrestrials somewhere in the universe that measure intelligence in a completely different way, even if they put the same value on what is "intelligent".
The fact that most people answered your question with "no, it's not socially constructed" shows how little the majority of people reflect on their surroundings. They just assume that because the world is the way it is, it can't be any other way. That's of course not true though.
Opinion
35Opinion
To me, intelligence can best be summed by neuroplasticity - That is the ability for your mind to quickly and successfully adapt to new situations even without prior training and experience.
Stupidity, to me, is making the wrong decision/taking the wrong action, in spite of previously held knowledge that the risks greatly outstrip any possible reward.
Intelligence is not a 'social construct'. The term 'social construct' is part of Cultural Marxist bullshit, from the Frankfurt School.
The members of the Frankfurt School were all Jews, all Communists and all insane.
Intelligence is both self-evident in a person's behaviour, learning capacity and achievements; and is measurable in a scientific way.
Yes and no. What we define as intelligent and as stupid is absolutely socially constructed- like artistic talent not typically being considered intelligence while mathematical or scientific talent is. The actual differences in ability in different areas that people have aren't socially constructed in that they exist objectively and even outside of the context of society, it's just whether those different abilities are categorized as "intelligence" or not that's a social construct.
While intelligence and stupidity can be terms used to represent political means, there are also scientific definitions to these.
The usefulness of said intelligence however is dependent on culture/location.
Being good at maths won't help you much stranded in the jungle.
Einstein said 'if you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it would go it's whole life thinking it was stupid'
We put values on people being better at certain things so I'd say yeah a social construct to an extent.
But then evolution... if you do something that endangers your life pointlessly isn't it just natural selection?
No. Giving a name to something that exists is not a social construct. It's blatantly obvious that some people are considerably smarter than others.
People approximately 3 standard deviations below average can't even take care of themselves. That's not a social construct, they are simply not capable of doing it. They will probably need a full time caregiver. On the high end of the scale it might be less noticeable, but at the low end it certainly is.
*ARE intelligence and stupidity social constructS?
*What ARE your definitionS OF intelligence, and stupidity?
Ignorance is far worse than stupidity. Ignorance, is ignoring what you have been taught, even when it is both right, and best.
No rhere are definitive levels of competence that people have, that are in no way "social constructs". People can make stupid or smart choices or know more than others and some people make more smart choices than others and vice versa, ie. some people are smarter than others.
It is a social construct. Think of your typical "dumb" jock who's good at baseball. Doesn't the ability to hit a ball fast ball just right to get a home run require some sort of spatial intelligence. There's no such thing as dumb and intelligent, people are just good at things they practice, and those who are good at reading just happen to be called intelligent, when actually they've probably just been forced to do it more so they have more practice at it.
No. Intelligence is independent of both education and experience, and it can be measured. The social construct is to conflate intelligence with education.
No, some people are genuine retards. actually, most Humans are.
a person is Smart
people are Stupid
now what society deems stupid and smart is a construct. after all the American educational system is Trash in comparison of China or Japan. our smartest person here is probably average over there.
the way thay we measure and react stupidity and inteligence deffinately is a social construct but the actual consept exists in all species in nature. statisticly an inteligent animal is more likely to survive longer than another animal of the same species.
Literally no, it's not... If you need an explanation... well...
if a kid can open a door and another can't it is safe to say that the other kid is a little more stupid
The psych literature is pretty split on this. IQ scales are an objective measurement, but some debate about whether or not we should include concepts of various types of intelligence. Ie emotional intelligence.
Intelligence is not a social construct it is a genetic feature.
Source: Humans are smarter than orangutans
Unless you're about to tell me all animals on earth are social constructs. If thats the case, get the hell out.
No, there is solid science backing that up. And you can see, how different people act, so you have real life evidence.
No, there are 9 types of intelligence.
blog.adioma.com/.../
off course intelligence and stupidity are existing, but off course there are more way to describe them. I don't think is only a matter of Q. I. test, but also matter of how you can apply your knowledge to the real world and sometimes how you able to understand things.
There are people more logic and some more impulsive/artistic. Off course there are more kind of intelligence, but unfortunately there will be someone bad to all of these, sometimes only because of laziness
I'm not sure. We consider someone stupid when he can't do math or can't understand the "common sense" but all these stuff are what some people have invented so it's kind if tricky.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions