Sraver 1

Aimee Sraver

Mrs. Ferris and Dr. Risk

PORT 121

11 October 2005

Successful Intelligence

Sternberg defines successful intelligence as a balance of analytical, practical, and creative ways of thinking. It is valuable to have a good balance of intelligence, but successfully intelligent people don’t just have abilities, they reflect on when and how to use their abilities effectively (Sternberg 128). While Sternberg talks about the significance of each aspect of intelligence, he points out that many schools overlook intelligent people, because they put an overemphasis on analytical intelligence, instead of allowing kids to explore their creative and practical ways of thinking as well. Most schools value analytical intelligence, which they recognize as the “smart” way of thinking, but according to Sternberg, analytical intelligence may be less useful in life than creative and practical intelligence (127). People are getting misrepresented all over the place, because of intelligence tests that determine what makes people more or less successful in the real world.

Most schools overcapitalize on analytical intelligence, because they believe it pays to be smart in the real world. Children are rewarded for their analytical intelligence, by receiving good grades, awards, and impressive college acceptances (Sternberg 132). For example, the SATs test a person’s analytical intelligence, and are evidently one of the most important deciding factors in accepting someone into a college or university.

Sraver 2

Similar to the SAT, most settings that value analytical intelligence, tell students what to write, or how to answer a question the “right” way. Once people start applying for jobs, they realize that their analytical intelligence is not enough for later success. Therefore, schools should be preparing children to live in a world where what matters is successful intelligence (Sternberg 136).

The problem with this society is that analytical intelligence is viewed as being the smart way of thinking and thinking practically and creatively is frowned upon, because it does not conform to the proper ways of thinking that are taught in school settings. I have never been a particularly gifted analytical thinker. I have done well in school, but I have not always felt like I’ve performed to the best of my ability, because schools are so restrictive when it comes to how to complete an assignment. For example, in my math class, my teacher has a specific way that she wants the problems to be completed, and those of us who are more visual learners, might fall behind, because we are marked wrong for doing what works best for us.

The trouble with only focusing on analytical intelligence is that it encourages people who aren’t analytical thinkers, to study for tests only to retain the information for the purpose of getting a good grade. Often, abilities are domain-specific, and a person who does well in one class, might not do well in another. It is tough for anyone to do well in something that does not interest them, which is why schools should have a variety of classes that would allow kids to compensate for their weaknesses, and capitalize on their strengths.

Sraver 3

Sternberg suggests that it would be useful to see if students would perform better in the classroom if they were taught it a way that allowed them to make use of the forms of intelligence that came most naturally to them (147). I think this approach would be very beneficial to students who aren’t driven by their analytical intelligence. For example, children who are creative run the risk of being “different.” It is really unfortunate that most classes will penalize children for being creative, because it is often seen as a distraction. Creative ideas are very valuable, because they usually go against the crowd (Sternberg 189). Children are almost always taught to drawn within the lines, and are rewarded when they do (Sternberg 191). Insisting on “right” answers and the “right” way of doing things encourages conformity, not creativity (Sternberg 203). As it pertains to creative thinkers, the only limitations in terms of assignments are the limitations in the imagination of the teacher (Sternberg 208).

In an analytical favored setting, people aren’t given much of a choice when it comes to what they want to write about for papers, or what they want to do a project on. On the other hand, the positive aspect of creative intelligence is that the more leeway you give students, the more they will learn how to choose wisely the problems and projects they want to pursue, which is essential for success in life (Sternberg 211).

When asked to be creative, most people’s response would be, “I’m not creative.” Often times, creativity is associated with art, but evidently people are creative in their every day lives without even recognizing it. People use their creative intelligence in all types of situations. If someone goes to a hotel and finds out that there are no rooms available, they can use their creative intelligence to find a new place to stay. When we

Sraver 4

did the activity in class where we had to listen to songs and try to figure out whose song it was, people were creative by picking songs that they knew no one would ever guess. Even though I would say I’m not creative on paper, my creativity is shown when I have to adjust to certain situations, or I can be creative when working on a project that is of interest to me. Being creative means that we should all willing to step outside the boxes that we as well as others have built for ourselves, before we become trapped inside (Sternberg 218).

Practical intelligence is having common sense and knowing what you need to do in order to thrive in certain situations. In the book, Sternberg uses Celia as an example of someone who is street smart in an academic setting. Like Celia, I know what works for me in academic settings; therefore I can sign up for courses according to how I learn best. In school, as well as in life, one needs a certain amount of practical smartness in order to adapt to the environment (Sternberg 142). For example, I used my practical intelligence when I was discussing with my parents their plans for coming to visit. It was parent’s weekend, so my mom and dad were going to drive down on Thursday afternoon and then drive home on Saturday afternoon. We had lacrosse games at St. Mary’s college in Maryland on Sunday, so I suggested the practical thing to do was to have my parents drive down together, and then have my dad fly back and my mom could stop and see us play on her way back home. Like creative intelligence, practical intelligence is not what our tests measure, nor is it sufficiently emphasized in schools (Sternberg 146).

Successfully intelligent people have a good balance of analytical, creative, and practical intelligence. Successfully intelligent people are flexible in adapting to roles they

Sraver 5

need to fulfill (Sternberg 153). They recognize that they will have to change they way they work to fit the task and situation and hand (153). Successful people defy the crowd and, eventually, come to lead it (Sternberg 189). A person who uses their practical intelligence would find an environment that rewards what they have to offer. I can relate to this, when I had to decide whether I wanted to play division one or division three lacrosse. If I played division one, I would probably never play, and as a result I would put a lot of pressure on myself to be as good as everyone else. In the end, I chose to play division three, because I would be able to play and not have to worry about making mistakes. I needed to be in an environment that allowed me to capitalize on my strengths. After reading this book about successful intelligence, it is apparent that we need to take Sternberg’s advice and look beyond IQ to identify gifted individuals. There are many ways to be gifted, and scores on conventional intelligence tests represent only one of them (154).