Smart and Stupid at the Same Time
I’ve spoken before about human intelligence being a multi-dimensional thing and today I thought we’d take a brief look at, what I believe to be, one of the most important and valuable components of overall intelligence: Social Intelligence. Some people are very intelligent (capable, competent, efficient) when it comes to completing certain tasks but surprisingly inept (dare I say, stupid?) when it comes to others.
You know what I mean.
This Piece Goes Where?
Some people might suggest that I’m reasonably intelligent when it comes to writing, communicating and expressing my ideas but if those same people saw me trying to put together a piece of DIY furniture and understand the accompanying instruction sheet, they might (reasonably) conclude that I am, in fact, an idiot. It’s probably fair to say that my mechanical intelligence is low. Actually, no, low would be a significant step up.
And if those same people saw the quizzical (confused, lost, stupid) look on my face in any movie with a plot more complex than Porky’s Revenge, they’d probably realise that their initial assessment was spot on. It’s fair to assume that I won’t be recruited by the FBI, NASA or MENSA any time soon. Sadly, I’m often confused and asking stupid questions before the opening scene has finished.
Yep, smart comes in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes you won’t realise how smart somebody is until you’re stuck on an island with them and they build you a house, catch you some fish and save your life all before sunset. This might also be the same person who struggles to spell or calculate simple equations.
IQ Tests
When most of us talk about measured intelligence we are generally talking about a score someone has achieved completing, what we know as, an IQ test. While a score from an IQ test can tell us a little about a person, there’s far more that it doesn’t tell us. And quite often the information an IQ test doesn’t provide is exactly what will make the difference between success and failure (depending on the task, of course).
We all know at least one person who, if required, could write a quick overview of quantum physics in ten minutes (in three languages) yet would struggle to walk into a social setting and engage a stranger in casual conversation. Neither would they get your joke or know when they’re pissing someone off. And if they had to do something complex like change a baby’s nappy(diaper) (1) they’d panic and (2) they’d have to Google it.
While there are several definitions for Social Intelligence, what I’m talking about today is our ability to interact effectively with other people in a range of settings, situations and circumstances. Following are some indicators of a person’s level of social intelligence.
How do you rate yourself on the following?
- Being an active listener.
- Reading and responding to non-verbal cues – keeping in mind that the majority of our communication is non-verbal.
- Being able to create connection and build rapport.
- Reading situations and people in those situations.
- Knowing what is and what isn’t appropriate for that conversation and that moment.
- Being able to avoid and, when necessary, resolve conflict.
- Making others feel valued, respected and appreciated.
- Knowing when to say nothing.
- Knowing how to start a conversation.
- Assessing the feelings of others and understanding a perspective other than your own.
- Demonstrating humility.
- Being able to hold a conversation with someone with whom you have nothing in common.
- Being able to adapt your communication style for your audience (individual or group) in terms of language, vocabulary, volume, speed and content.
- Being able to motivate, inspire and empower others.
The Right Person for the Right Job
Since I started my business (just after the last ice-age), I’ve employed somewhere in the vicinity of four hundred people. When I’m interviewing prospective staff I always rate people skills, communication and social intelligence above academic intelligence on the employability scale. Of course I want knowledgeable, qualified and technically competent staff but I’m acutely aware that those three ingredients don’t automatically equal a great trainer, teacher, coach, motivator or employee. It’s my experience that people with a high level of social intelligence are well suited to (the numerous) careers which involve significant face-to-face contact and social interaction.
Over the years, I’ve met, worked with and employed many people who have had limited technical knowledge (to begin with) and basic qualifications yet they constantly produced great results, built fantastic relationships and were always in demand because they simply had a high level of social intelligence. They were smart where and when it counted. They had excellent awareness, empathy, insight, understanding and overall people skills.
A Different Education
How great would it be if our school kids were part of an educational system which not only valued and taught the academic basics (mathematics, sciences, humanities), but also one that held the development of their social and interpersonal skills in the same esteem? If this were to happen, I believe our kids would come out of school much better prepared for the practical realities and challenges of life beyond the classroom. Imagine if they had the choice of elective subjects such as communication, conflict resolution, leadership, emotional intelligence and relationship building 101… just to name a few.
Very cool.
I might build that school.
Let me know your thoughts on this topic.
Please let me know when you build that school. I would be one of the first to apply. I have been in academia for a while now and your ideas are very close to my heart but unfortunately many others do not share this sentiment. Building the future is not just about academic progress but must also include social development.
I think you’ll find a lot of people agree with you. One issue is that we get hung up on our current system (“Why fix something that apparently isn’t broken?”). Another is funding. A charter school would be a good place for a proof of concept. Let me know if you need an IT worker/trainer/teacher.
I find your list interesting. It includes a number of “introvert” traits but we introverts aren’t know for social skills. :)
For goodness’ sake. This is the very thing that has been *undermining* “academic basics” over the past two decades: the soft skills have become the important subjects, to exclusion and destruction of investment in education in the sciences. UK education is 20 years ahead of your idea and has overdone it.
What we need is a return to academic basics and less of the “how do you feel about this, Justin”? Emotional security is the domain of parenting. School can add to that but not – NOT – as a subject worthy of a place on a curriculum.
Yes, I am a Physics and Mathematics teacher.
Excellent first half of an article. I can’t wait to see the useful portion: practical techniques for improving social intelligence. Or, am I destined to be a social-idiot my entire life.
I agree, to some extent, with Nick. Even in the natural sciences there is an emphasis on softer skills that has affected, I think negatively, the hard skills learning of today’s students. The “how do you feel” issue, though it is a problem, is not the root of the problem. At the core of the problem is an increasingly social society that would rather examine the history of scrapbooking than the measurement of stress on the pressure points of the foot during track and field exercises. Same field — recreation management and kinesiology — totally different contributions. Perhaps someone would like to argue that the history of scrapbooking is more important than I give it credit for…
I’ve always thought every school should also teach basic life skills at increasing difficulty throughout school. For example, every elementary school should have land allotted to a garden including vegetables to teach people to grow their own foods. Then maybe as you get older they teach you basic electricity and plumbing for being a homeowner, etc. Why don’t we do that?
I totally agree with Nick that this school should already exist — in every home. Humility, active listening, knowing when to be silent, being able to avoid and resolve conflict — kids may not have a complete mastery of those things by the time they enter school, but they should be progressing toward mastery. That’s why we have such problems in public schools today, because parents are pushing the responsibility of teaching those things on teachers. Read a transcript of a typical classroom dialogue and you will see countless requests to be quiet, sit down, and pay attention. You’ll also hear repetition of the same material over and over and OVER again because students (generally) aren’t taught to do things like listen actively and pay attention at home. My parents did a fantastic job of teaching me when to be quiet, when and how to listen, etc. And where they left off, my siblings picked up the slack (especially when it came to teaching me humility)!
This is one of the reasons we homeschool. I know to many that probably sounds ironic, because of the myth that homeschoolers are unsocialized. But we ascribe to a philosophy of homeschooling called unschooling, which is interest-led. It allows our kids to pursue all sorts of creative paths and interact with a wide range of people. It enhances their strengths instead of trying to fix their weaknesses. (You’d be surprised how weaknesses get “fixed” in the process.)
We celebrate knowledge as more than just the three R’s. We’re happy that we get to provide our kids with that opportunity.
This sounds like a very American view to me.
Here in the Netherlands there are lots of discussions as well, that people should learn more ‘real’ stuff in schools, instead of only doing group-projects. I tend to agree.
Yes, learning social skills is important, but you should learn that in school breaks, in sports, in extracurricular activities. But in most (high) school-courses, you should learn math, your language, history, geography, physics. And through that you also learn social stuff, but that should not be the main point of the curriculum.
(I had a one year course on housekeeping in high school, by the way, where we learned what the laundry-signs on clothes meant, and the like. And in primary school we had ‘school-gardens’, where indeed we each had to tend to our own little piece of land with flowers, potatoes and vegetables).
/NR
While I can see the benefit of teaching social skills to children, I think that schools are already trying to do too much. You only have so much time, so many classrooms, and so many teachers. Rather than trying to add more, we ought to be narrowing down what we already have and doing better at that.
I couldn’t agree more! Since I entered corporate America, I’ve found time and time again that it’s often not necessarily the best and brightest who get ahead, but those who are the most socially adept.
I’ve noticed that most socially adept don’t know how, they say it just comes naturally.
The ones who are able to tell how they do it, are usually people who once was socially inept and had to take their time studying social settings.
And yes, they should really teach stuff like this at schools.
Social skills are like anything else, you get better at them by practicing. Sure some of us are more naturally tallented then others, but then again, no matter how much I practice I’m never going to be as good at basketball as Lebron or understand physics as well as Einstein, that doesn’t mean I can’t get better by praciticing. If you want to create a school that produces more socially competent and confident students then you don’t need to change the classes, you need to change the school environment. School in America does nothing to empower students and turn them into confident people. The biggest difference I see between people who are socially competent and those who aren’t is that the more comfortable people are in their own skin, the more confident they are in themselves, the better they will handle difficult social situation. A large part of the problem is the academic attitude towards the student teacher relationship. I went to a highschool where the teachers took personal interest in students and felt it was their job to empower students, not tear them down and hammer knowledge into their heads so they will do well on a standardized test and the teachers salary will go up. I wasn’t a streight A student, by a lot of accounts I would be considered a bad student, my parents were pissed, they called my advisor, he told them basically not to worry about it because there were more important things in life then grades and that I was doing well even if the grades didn’t reflect it. This recognition of the importance of things other then grades and test scores is totally lacking in most academic institutions and I think this is the true failure, not that we have the wrong classes. Beyond this, I see a lot of teachers blaming students for getting bad grades. What does this accomplish? Have you ever tried getting a teen ager to do something by blaming or shaming them? You might as well go bang your head against a wall, teachers need to realise that it is up to them to engage the students and find a way to help each student succeed. Is this hard? Yes. Does it take extra effort from underpaid teachers? Yes. Does it make a HUGE difference? You bet! Everytime a teacher blames a student for a failure it further reinforces the idea that that student isn’t good enough, kids hear this message enough, they need someone in their life to tell them that they are good enough, even if it isn’t in a traditional manner. Create a school campus that values community, and empowers students to grow into confident people, and you will produce more socially competent students. You don’t need to teach them different classes, this will just create another academic discipline, and at the end of the day, social interaction just isn’t an academic pursuit.
Intelligence is generally measured as the speed at which you learn. IQ tests are based on logic and reasoning, but that may or may not have anything to do with the speed at which you can grasp things.
The rest is just knowledge and circumstance. If you happened to be in a place where you learned survival skills, you’re better off on a desert island than someone who learned calculus. But in a classroom, testing, the calculus guy has the upper hand.
If two guys are learning survival skills, the guy who learns them faster is more intelligent. And probably better off.
Also, if an intelligent person is a “natural” at something, they’re also pretty good at examining themselves and what they do, and identifying differences between themselves and those who are less successful.
/<3
Such an amazing post, being in college right now, I know how important social intelligence is, and I am very surprised at how many people don’t have this. If subjects were taught in high school that actually pertain to life situations, people would be in a much better place upon graduation
hey i think that in schools social intelligence could come from activities more than books. their should be classes for these (mostly in beginning of the sessions) but yeah very COOL idea and nice article
I thought this was going to be good until your conclusion. There are many different kinds of intelligence and we should be teaching kids in order to accentuate their giftedness while at the same time helping them minimize their shortcomings. I am an introvert who is mechanically and procedurally gifted, but I didn’t get an early start in recognizing where I would flourish, so I’m playing catch-up while in my 30′s and supporting a family in a dead-end job. I wish I had someone tell me while in highschool what my strengths were and where they’d fit as well as where my weaknesses were and what I should avoid.
Wow, the physicist with no social or hands on skills trope? You might try meeting some of us. We have been known to play sports too. ;)
I would probably agree with the folk above that there has been too much of a move away from academic rigor on the UK side of the pond at school level and we need to correct this. Communication, conflict resolution, etc should be taught as part of teaching the academic subject. I’m not convinced in the usefulness of teaching them in an abstract, detached way that a 101 course would lead to, unless the student was planning on studying it academically rather than as a soft skill.
I dont know where the writer is from but in the Netherlands social/communication skills and self-reflection are a central part of about every project and course in most studies. And most student hate them when they get asked for the 5th time “What do you want to improve about yourself, and how are you going to do that”.
And I think intelligence and skill is sometimes mixed up here. Intelligence is something what youre pretty much born with. Skill is something you can develop, more then intelligence. Someone with low social intelligence can have a better social skill then someone with a high social intelligence. Then again social intelligence to me doesnt seem to be a real form of intelligence (inherent capacity) but more a higher order of mostly emotional intelligence together with personality traits/attitude and experience.
The biggest difference I see between people who are socially competent and those who aren’t is that the more comfortable people are in their own skin, the more confident they are in themselves, the better they will handle difficult social situation. A large part of the problem is the academic attitude towards the student teacher relationship. I went to a highschool where the teachers took personal interest in students and felt it was their job to empower students, not tear them down and hammer knowledge into their heads so they will do well on a standardized test and the teachers salary will go up. I wasn’t a streight A student, by a lot of accounts I would be considered a bad student
I must dissent on several points.
First of all, I don’t think self-confidence is the best way to gauge a person’s social skills. Or at least, the kind of social skills we have in mind: for our children to be sociable in a decent, moral way.
Yes, Machiavellians and relational bullies are, in a sense, socially adept. They usually get more respect from school authorities and employers than their victims. And more often than not, they have high self-esteem. But there’s something fundamentally wrong about their social abilities and self-esteem: they use them to hurt others and power trip, rather than inspire and make friends.
I personally would rather not have to think about projecting self-confidence. I would rather do my work, ask questions, just jump right into life and build relationships.
We already are prioritizing interpersonal skills. But we’re going about it the wrong way, all over.
One example: especially if we work in the retail and service sectors, we have to contend with managers who think interpersonal skill involves exuding as much happiness as is humanly possible; this and upselling are emphasized above every other social skill you mention. Which may actually be detrimental to relationship-building: are they REALLY my friend, or are they trying to sell me something? Of course our workplace experiences and habits bleed over into our everyday lives!
A lot of us feel pressure to collect friends and connections like baseball cards; a kind of cutthroat competition to be the most likeable; which sounds like an oxymoron.
Accumulating lots of money and material possessions is really about a desire to fit in with rich and successful people– people who can afford those things. If sound money management is liable to land you on the outs socially, especially with your co-workers, you are NOT going to stop being a spendthrift. If a bad habit happens to be, unspokenly, a condition for harmony with or social group, we are bound to continue it, no matter the consequences.
As a person who was socially awkward in college, which is considered a huge social formative period, I have wondered if people can “read” or “feel” my past, even today. (Certainly they can if they’re very empathetic.)
I have wondered if now, decades later, I would have to make up for that lost time and do anything and everything to prove I have enough social skills. Including get married and have children when I wish to do neither.
At the same time, we tend to believe that the most socially adept are the ones who we personally like the best– especially in work settings; where “the best fit” is too often someone who resembles us in personality or character. The scientific research doesn’t help, either, saying that similarity builds rapport.
And empty_other, those social adepts you know what said interacting came naturally, most likely had body language that was attractive to others, which they had subconsciously picked up from their parents or other sociable role models. Small tricks of attraction do serve as “sparks” that lead to a head start in social development– naturally, the earlier you “spark”, the more opportunities for practice, which is really the only way you can improve yourself socially.
Learning these truths at first made me feel very cynical– not more embracing– about relationships. It took me years to get to a more embracing stage, and I still have far to go.
I especially chafe at the idea that the “right” body language and mannerisms could be THE most important thing in interacting, even more important than what we think of as love and compassion. The pre-requisite to everything else that follows in a relationship, if you will.
I despise the “lizard brain” for impeding human progress and civil rights, and causing so much interpersonal misery and loss of human potential; but unfortunately, it does seem to be necessary for healthy social development. I continue to think of the subconscious as a necessary evil, and will keep on looking for more enlightened alternatives.
Bottom line, the fatal flaw in social skills is that you do NOT have control over how people are going to feel about you or respond to you. But you are still held responsible for their feelings and responses. Moreover, you are still presumed to have this power you don’t have, even right in this article: “Make others feel appreciated and valued”.
The best you can usually do is listen to others, get a feel for what they consider feeling appreciated, and display behaviors that approximate that feeling. And you may still not get them to feel appreciated. Nor may your approximation be all that accurate, especially if your time together has been short.
I think we should refrain in instances like this one, from labeling either of the two people essentially “socially incompetent”. The goal should not be a perfect synchronization of responses, but a harmonious enough “duet” and a sense of love and respect between all involved.
I wonder if the best way to teach social skills is, therefore, to do so implicitly. Have only the occasional explicit teaching about feelings and responses, but bury the majority in everyday projects, tasks and conversations.
I totally agree with you. There are a number of lessons missing from the curriculum.
Among them are skills we use every day, yet are never taught.It baffles me that we spend so much time learning about stuff we do not need, while not learning what really matters.
I wrote a book about it,called ”You dont learn that in school”
It teaches the 4 basic life skills we can’t do without yet never learn in school. Those skills are :
- managing your mind
- raising your self esteem
- learn how to appreciate life more
- how to be successful.
I was glad to come across your article, because I share the same comcerns. Infact I’m starting something on the same lines, but only as a training program in schools twice ayear. Schools with soft skills as a regular curriculum, is a pipe dream at present. The best I can do is offer the curriculum as an extra-curricular activity.
Active Listening Training – Feeling Feedback (Reflecting)…
Reflecting – Using Emotions To Your Advantage This is a supplementary post to this one on Active Listening. Feeling Feedback or Reflecting is a more advanced form of Active Listening. It incorporates Paraphrasing with a psychological dimension in…
and the best thing is: it is nothing anybody of us is born with – so the whole thing is really trainable, even for grunty elders!
Following are some indicators of a person’s level of social intelligence.
Following are some indicators of a person’s level of social intelligence.lapo
Following are some indicators of a person’s level of social intelligence.
Following are some indicators of a person’s level of social intelligence.d
Following are some indicators of a person’s level of social intelligence.
Following are some indicators of a person’s level of social intelligence.
I like that saying dont judge a book by its cover. You can be sitting next to the smartest person in the world but wouldnt even know it just by looking at them.
while academic basics could be taught in a classroom environment, the same is not applicable in case of social intelligence. It is something that one gains through time and experience and heavily depends on the situations that an individual has to face in his/her social life… in other words, u cant contain social intelligence in a prescribed curriculum, there is natural education for it and is accessible to those who choose to do so
Man! I have become a fan of you by just this article… Wonderfully crafted, atleast fits perfectly for me :) still wondering what i really learned from my education other than academics and a white collar job – dumb found in most life situations… However social skills can equally be influenced by parenting apart from the schooling..