In honour of the one-year anniversary of lockdown, reminisce back to last year’s quarantine trends: trends as simple as making dalgona coffee or doing the WAP dance pervaded the internet. Now, after a year into the lockdown, many of these trends have turned sour. First, the #AutismChallenge, created to show solidarity, was defiled by people deriding the disorder by making facial expressions mocking individuals with disabilities. Most recently, the #SuperStraight “movement” gained traction across multiple social media platforms, including TikTok, Twitter, and 4Chan.

“Super-straight” people claim a new sexuality that demands the same respect as marginalized sexual identities. The term was coined by TikTok user Kyle Royce in a now-deleted video where he calls for the rise of this “new sexuality,” claiming it to be a part of the LGBTQ+ community. “Yo guys, I made a new sexuality, it’s called super straight,” he laughed. “I only date the opposite gender, women, that are born women,” he continued, “so you can’t say I’m transphobic now because that’s my sexuality.”

The video accumulated more than two million likes before it was taken down and moved to 4Chan, a website notorious for its popularity with right-wing extremist trolls. Although the original video is no longer visible to most internet users, people have continued to openly identify as “super-straight” to justify their transphobia. The twitter account @supa_str8 has even created a “pride flag” consisting of orange and black colours (which ironically are the colours of Grindr, a dating app for queer people).

“Super-straight” people argue that they’re allowed to have their own preferences for dating without it necessarily being transphobic. However, their actions say otherwise. People have started to add black and orange emojis to their social media bios, similar to the way LBGTQ users include pride flags in theirs. They’ve mocked LGBTQ rites of passage by creating fake coming out videos and celebrating with their “pride flag.” Trans creators, who already face harassment on social media, are now also dealing with comments littered with black and orange emojis.

Though having your own romantic preferences may not seem transphobic at first, the very definition of “super-straight” is a glaring red flag. As the creator of “super-straight” explains, “Straight men like myself get called transphobic because I wouldn’t date a trans woman. They’re like, ‘Why? That’s a female’. ‘No, that’s not a real woman to me.’” The very concept behind this sexuality is based off of invalidating other people’s identities and claiming that only the female sex are “real women” and vice versa for men. Claiming “super-straight” is a sexuality dismisses the journey it takes to realize one’s sexual identity and exemplifies the discrimination that LGBTQ people face every day.

However, as trans activists have repeatedly stated, not wanting to date a specific person who happens to be trans is not necessarily transphobic. What is transphobic, however, is not wanting to date someone for the sole reason that they're trans. In trans activist Brynn Tannehill’s words, “The belief that all transgender people are unattractive to you, and that you could not have chemistry with them, or you religiously object to transgender people, is an expression of transphobia.” Users attempting to merge “super-straight” into the LGBTQ+ community argue against “oppression” from trans people while failing to realize that cishet people make up a vast majority of people, the exact opposite from the marginalized LGBTQ minority. After all, what sexual orientation in the LGBTQ community is -phobic of another?

The next time you see #superstraight content trending on TikTok or witness someone “coming out” with a “super-straight” flag, report the account for hate speech and harassment. Spend a few minutes of your day reading over resources for allies (a list is below)—your actions against discrimination will help make society a safer, more inclusive place for trans people and for anyone who does not conform to conventional gender expectations.

A very well-known composer named Ludwig Van Beethoven was born in Bohn, Germany, in December of 1770. He would later be recognized as one of the most prominent composers of the time, experimenting with various melodic structures never used before. While writing his ninth symphony, he decided he would go beyond the normal orchestral instrumentation, adding chorus and solo vocalists. Because of his eccentric style of composing, he ultimately transformed people’s perspectives of the many forms of music, including with his symphonies. A few years after completing his ninth symphony, he passed away due to an illness, but his famous works were not forgotten. Strangely, as time went on, it appeared as if numerous composers after Beethoven’s time also died after writing or starting their ninth symphony. Many believed this was a superstition, and dismissed it as a coincidence. However, some who truly believed this was a curse went as far as calling it the “Curse of the 9th Symphony.” Did Beethoven truly begin a curse that would haunt the classical community for years to come, or is it just a myth?

The famous composer Mahler was the first to notice that composers usually died after writing nine symphonies. Consumed by superstition, he tried to beat the curse by titling his ninth symphony Das Lied von der Erde (The Song of the Earth). His idea was that if he titled it differently, it wouldn’t specifically count as his ninth symphony, thereby beating the curse. But shortly after he moved on to writing a tenth symphony, he contracted pneumonia and died.

Among Mahler’s closest friends was Arnold Schoenberg, another prominent composer of the time. After hearing that Mahler had become a victim of the curse, he too fell into the rabbit hole of superstition. In an essay Schoenberg wrote about Mahler, he stated that whoever went beyond writing a ninth symphony would inevitably face death. He started warning other composers, but in vain. At that time, the only composers who had fallen to the supposed curse of the 9th were Beethoven and Mahler, but it wasn’t the end.

Fast forward to Dvorak, who came after Mahler. After hearing about the curse, Dvorak tried to evade it by naming his very famous ninth symphony, “From the New World,” his fifth. Many years later, it still wasn’t public knowledge until scholars discovered that Dvorak had in fact written four more symphonies before “From the New World,” revealing that his death also aligned with the effects of the curse.

In addition, the list of composers who died due to the ninth curse goes on, including Kurt Atterberg, Roger Sessions, and Alfred Schnittke, just to name a few.

Despite the many who died before finishing their tenth symphonies, there are actually many composers who were successful in beating the curse. Philip Glass, a famous contemporary composer, beat the curse by premiering his tenth symphony way before his ninth, so it wouldn’t necessarily count as writing his real ninth symphony. The composers before Beethoven’s time, including Mozart, wrote well over 40, while Haydn wrote over 100! Then, there’s Leif Segerstam who nonchalantly wrote 324 symphonies.

To this day, we still do not know if Beethoven really started the curse. Was it the case that all composers would inevitably have to face the curse of the ninth? No matter the many composers who lived after writing their ninth symphony, the curse of the ninth will always be a lurking reminder of the many, many distinguished composers who were never able to complete their tenth symphony.

1. Bennett II, J. (2016, October 17). The Curse of the Ninth Haunted These Composers. Retrieved March 14, 2021, from https://www.wqxr.org/story/how-curse-ninth-symphony-haunted-these-composers/
   
2. Cooke, D. V. (n.d.). Gustav Mahler. Retrieved March 14, 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gustav-Mahler
   
3. Han, I. (2019, March 8). Why did composers write only nine symphonies? Curse or superstition? Retrieved March 14, 2021, from https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/arts_culture/2019/03/curse-or-superstition-that-is-the-question.html
   
4. Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (n.d.). Antonín Dvořák. Retrieved March 14, 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antonin-Dvorak
   
5. Roberts, M. (2019, January 30). What is the curse of the ninth – and does it really exist? Retrieved March 14, 2021, from https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/curse-of-the-ninth/
   
6. Rodriguez, A. (2021, February 11). The musical curse that takes the lives of the most famous composers. Retrieved March 14, 2021, from https://culturacolectiva.com/music/the-curse-of-the-ninth-famous-composers

As most people know, the Los Angeles Lakers were expected to win the championship for the second year in a row. Their starting lineup and stats seemed unmatchable. But recently, the All-Star player Blake Griffin was traded to the Brooklyn Nets. With this new addition, some suspect that the Nets could have gotten on equal footing with the Lakers. Many have already predicted that the 2020-2021 NBA championship will belong to either the Lakers or Nets, but who has the better team?

First, let's take a look at their individual player dynamics. In the NBA, each player has a player rating. It is called efficiency (“EFF” for short) and is calculated by comparing offensive and defence stats while using a formula created by Martin Manely. The formula is: (points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks - missed field goals - missed free throws - turnovers) / games played. Although it’s very lengthy, it accurately rates the skill of the players out of 100.

On the Lakers, the starting center is Marc Gasol. He averages 20.1 minutes on court and his overall NBA score is 78. Compared to the Nets center, DeAndre Jordan, who’s score is a 79, Gasol isn’t much worse. Jordan scores more points, but is on court for longer. So in terms of centers at the moment, the Nets and Lakers are practically at par.

But it’s a completely different story for the small forwards. Here, the Lakers take a clear win. They have LeBron James, the highest rated NBA player currently playing, with an astonishing score of 99. The Nets have Joe Harris, with a great score of 80, but even he can’t compare to James.

On the other hand, when we compare shooting guards, the Nets clearly have the better player, James Harden. Compared to the Lakers shooting guard, Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, he has a lot more experience and scores almost 3 times the amount of points while having an NBA score of 93.

Both the Nets and Lakers have amazing power forwards, Anthony Davis on the Lakers and Kevin Durant on the Nets. Durant has more experience and averages 7 more points than Davis. He also has a higher NBA score by only 2 points. Davis is really close to reaching Durant’s level, but remains slightly behind in every category.

Finally, the point guards on both teams, Kyrie Irving on the Nets and Dennis Schröder on the Lakers, are quite similar in terms of playing time. Irving scores an average of 27.6 points per game and has an NBA score of 90, while Schroder averages 14.6 points a game and has a score of 83. Kyrie Irving is definitely the better player, but Dennis Schröder is still quite solid.

Some other good players other crucial players include:

• Nets

  • Blake Griffin (power forward, 80 - new player)

  • Spencer Dinwiddie (point guard, 81)

  • LaMarcus Aldridge (power forward, 84)

  • Jeff Green (center, 77)

  • Bruce Brown (point guard, 74)

• Lakers

  • Andre Drummond (center, 83 - new player)

  • Kyle Kuzma (power forward, 77)

  • Montrezl Harrell (center, 81)

Fortunately for other teams, it takes a little bit more than individual talents to make a team succeed. To really have a chance to win the NBA championship, a team should be able to work together and communicate. If team members trust each other on court, they have higher chances of winning and less probable inter-team turmoil. The Nets are currently second place in the Eastern Conference with 28 wins and 13 losses, tied with the Philadelphia 76ers, who also have a great team dynamic. In the Western Conference, the Lakers are third with 27 wins and 13 losses. First and second are the Jazz and Suns. As you can tell, LA and Brooklyn are extremely close in the standings, although the Nets have higher winning streaks. We can’t determine too much from this except the fact that there are other teams out there who possibly have a better flow and team work dynamic, because win-loss totals show teamwork on court. They prove the team chemistry and justify why the team is good, even if they don’t have as many “‘star” players.

With all the information and statistics we’ve looked at, you can clearly see that the Brooklyn Nets are a slightly better team than the Lakers at the moment. They have better players, higher win streaks, and more. With the playoffs and elimination rounds approaching quickly, many teams need to get their game plans together. The Nets and Lakers have a good chance to win if they can learn to work together as a team. LA has already had a year of experience with the team members, but most of the players on the Nets are new! All we can do now is wait and see which team will end up winning the championship.

Sports Upkeep:

• Team LeBron win the All Star Games

• Peter Patterson signs with the Vikings

• Shawn Bradly is paralyzed after being struck by a car

• Pascal Siakum, Fred VanVleet, and several other players and staff on the Toronto Raptors contracted COVID-19

• Trent Williams becomes the highest paid OL

• Tiger woods gets into a car accident but is now released from the hospital

• LeBron James may become part owner of the Red Sox

• NHL isn’t postponing 2021 draft selection

• Ronaldo may return to Real Madrid

• Famous Boxer Marvin Haggler dies of natural causes at age 66

• https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2858459-br-nba-player-rankings-top-15-centers-for-2019-20
• https://www.lineups.com/nba/lineups/los-angeles-lakers
• https://www.lineups.com/nba/lineups/brooklyn-nets
• https://www.lineups.com/nba/player-ratings
• https://www.thescore.com/

The 2020 season proved to be a chaotic one for the 2017 League Champions, opening with a disappointing run in the “MLS Is Back” tournament that saw the Reds knocked out in the first elimination round by Eastern Conference rivals NYCFC. The first stage of the regular season, occurring after the conclusion of the “MLS Is Back” tournament, saw them clashing several times with their Canadian rivals, the Vancouver Whitecaps and CF Montreal. Toronto came out on top after dropping points to both teams once, qualifying them for the Canadian Championship Final. The team started the second stage of the regular season, now up against several Eastern Conference rivals, with an incredible run, going 9 games unbeaten before a 5-0 humiliation against the Philadelphia Union that ultimately cost them the Supporter’s Shield (the trophy given to the team with the highest number of points in the regular season). The team picked up only 3 points in their last 4 games, losing to Philadelphia and both New York teams. They were then knocked out of the MLS Postseason by newcomer Nashville SC. Despite the disappointing results, Alejandro Pozuelo, TFC’s number 10, was named the MLS’s Most Valuable Player.

The first lesson to draw from last season may very well be that the team must tighten up defensively, marking their opponents tighter and being more aggressive in winning back possession. Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of Toronto’s performances last season was the inconsistency between games. One match would see the team full of pace and attacking energy, while the next match would see a team that didn’t defend all that well. The perfect example of their poor defending would come in a 4-3 thriller against CF Montreal. The team conceded two penalties, one of which was foolishly given away for a handball in the penalty box committed by Laurent Ciman. Yet Akinola’s hat-trick managed to save the day, shoving the defensive issues under the rug. Another example was when an opposing team repeatedly exploited the same tactic of using long passes, putting an attacker in a one on one situation against a single defender or goalkeeper.

Then, there’s the offence. Looking at the team’s results, it’s fairly simple to discern that the team performs better when they score first. It would make sense to push high and fast in the beginning stages of the game, which is what was observed at the start of the season, when they were performing well). Yet that trend seemed to stop in the later stages of the season, where the team lacked energy and creativity throughout entire games, preferring to attack the opposing penalty box from the front, rather than crossing from either wing. A lackluster offence often required shutouts in order to win, with 1-0 being a common scoreline. It is nearly impossible to reconcile the offence seen from these lackluster final games with the aggressive team that defeated NYCFC prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, a lack of creative offensive energy and defensive solidity are the main issues to pinpoint when exploring the team’s poor results near the end of the season.

So, what’s there to expect for this season? The issues which ended their MLS Cup hopes early last season aren’t going to disappear easily. With the hiring of a new head coach, Chris Amras, following the departure of Greg Vanney to the LA Galaxy, it is also important to consider Amras’s coaching style and how smoothly the team transitions between coaches. However, if Amras addresses the staleness that overtook the team in the final third of the season, as well as some of the defensive problems (especially regarding the lack of consistent central defenders), the Reds will be in good shape for the coming season.

It would, unfortunately, be naive not to mention another obstacle, beyond tactical weaknesses. At one point, there were nine positive COVID-19 cases within their training camp. In addition, the team is also suffering from injuries, missing six of their eleven starters in their Champions League tie against Leon, which they won 3-2 on aggregate. Toronto FC have the quality to achieve results and there is undoubtedly cause for hope. So sit back and cheer on the Reds as they head into the 2021 season!

Online school is undoubtedly the enemy of productivity. Whether it’s completing a long- due assignment or sticking to a daily schedule, accomplishing tasks have become way more difficult since the pandemic. Many resources on maintaining focus and productivity have been shared between students. However, better time management and planning only scratches the surface of the true motives and reasons behind procrastination.

Time Management vs. Self-Control

The phenomenon of procrastination has garnered much interest in recent years. However, research has shown procrastination is beyond putting off a task or simple time management;, rather, it is an inability to manage emotions and a lack of self-control and self-discipline. As such, procrastination is known as the “quintessential breakdown of self-control.” The differing views of economists and psychologists can provide important perspectives on why people procrastinate. The research into of the core roots of procrastination done by both economists and psychologists has provided a foundation for future developments on the topic of how to combat procrastination. While many economists see procrastination as a utility equation, psychologists see flaws in such a strict view of procrastination as calculating the pleasure of a certain task and thus, deciding whether to complete it or not. If procrastination is a simple delay, people should be comfortable with placing it along with similar concepts of scheduling, unclear - people who procrastinate? But clearly, that is not the case.

Dr. Timothy Pychyl first noticed the role of mood and emotions in procrastination and published his study in the Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality in 2000. Procrastinators carry accompanying feelings of guilt, shame or anxiety as well as a lingering dread about the work set aside. They recognize the temporal harm in putting off work, but can’t overcome their emotional urges. Studies have shown that around 95% of people who procrastinate wish they could reduce that tendency. However, the short-term boost and dose of dopamine of giving into doing what feels better are what incentivizes people to continue procrastinating. in the future. As such, self-control succumbs to temptation and intuition when people have there is insufficient emotional regulation.

What Goes on in Our Brain?

The definition of procrastination is “the action of delaying or postponing something.” A better definition is, “the avoidance of work by focusing on satisfying activities that are due to chemicals in the brain.” Procrastination is a battle between the limbic system and the prefrontal cortex and the science of how different parts of our brains make decisions. The limbic system, also known as your “feeling brain,” is an unconscious zone of your brain that is the dominator of the two. Of which two? It controls your moods, instincts and is your pleasure center. The prefrontal cortex, also known as your “thinking brain,” is the rational thinker of the two who makes decisions and eventually forces you to do a task as it is an internal planner. Instincts and emotions are irrational so thus we are more likely to lean toward what our limbic system is saying in the short term than completing a daunting task.

Tips!

Everyone has different reasons behind why they procrastinate. It can stem from a fear of succeeding or anxiety about high expectations or the future. Procrastinators often comfort themselves with the false belief that they will be more emotionally equipped to handle the task in the future. The focus on how to make yourself feel better at the expense of drawing insight from what made them subject must be consistent - here you move from you to them. feel bad makes their future self a burden. As such, one of the most common beliefs is that some people work better under intense pressure. In the long run, the costs of procrastination are outweighed by the temporary benefits of joy and alleviation.

Always listening to your “feeling brain,” although it is tempting, is one of the strongest motives behind procrastination. Therefore, an important part of combatting procrastination is learning how and when to listen to different parts of your brain and coming up with strategies to strike a balance between the two. While it is hard to fix a lack of self-control or discipline and fix something by nature doesn’t fix easily,? there are many useful strategies for overcoming procrastination.

1. Mindfulness + Planning:

Breaking down large tasks into smaller tasks can decrease your catastrophizing. Assuring yourself that you can get through it and the task won’t kill you will help you get started. As well, creating a solid routine such as the Pomodoro method, setting realistic expectations and completing small parts of a task at a time is helpful as oftentimes, willpower isn’t enough.

2. Motivation:

While the emotional aspects of procrastination are tougher to grapple with, digging deeper and finding more personal meaning or rewarding experience in the task is a great source of motivation. Think about why you want to do the task and what you will get out of it instead of viewing it as something you are forced to do or an obstacle. Tasks are not things to overcome, rather things to experience or achieve.

3. Getting started:

Most people feel a sense of accomplishment after completing a task or project. Thinking about future ramifications and projecting yourself in the future to imagine how good you will feel once you’ve finished the task can help motivate you to get started. You will find motivation naturally comes after you’ve made the effort to start working. This also helps you listen to your “thinking brain” more often which leads to more productivity.

Overall, shifting your mindset to learn how to regulate emotions in a more positive way can help with managing procrastination and striking a good balance in your workload. While procrastination isn’t something you can get rid of quickly, learning how to cope with it is an incredibly valuable skill.

Intelligence. Such a powerful concept. It has forged civilizations, defined lives, and uncovered the laws of nature itself. Intelligence is the very backbone upon which mankind rests its identity. And yet, for such a familiar and important concept, people seem to be all but incapable of even describing it. Every time I ask a friend what intelligence is, there is a period of concerted thought punctuated with ums and uhs, which is mercifully ended by the mumbling of some weakly-worded response, before they immediately retract it. The few times I was asked to define intelligence, I did exactly the same.

So, what is intelligence? Is it getting good grades? Of course not. That depends on study habits, interest in a course, tolerance for school, your teacher that year, and a great many other things. Ok, maybe it’s how much you know. Better, but still quite far from the truth. Once again, work habits and interest play a huge role, as well as your access to opportunities to accumulate knowledge as a result of resources and privilege. Fine, maybe intelligence is something different altogether, some kind of nebulous collection of cognitive abilities. This is the answer that most people settle on, albeit with very different specifics. Generally, they agree that the ability to learn, remember, reason, solve problems, and analyze information critically all reflect intelligence. However, even this conceptual list is not satisfying. It’s miles more accurate then the previous two attempts, but still vague and unfulfilling.

Looking to the more official field of psychology for answers, many theories describe intelligence as a set of technical categories that sound much more rigorous: spatial visualization, numerical ability, word fluency, perceptual speed, memory, and inductive reasoning to name a few. The categories vary from theory to theory, but the above list conveys the general feeling as to what the field often deems intelligence. And yet, even armed with the best tools of psychology, this definition of intelligence feels pitiful compared to the power and clarity of intelligence in our minds. It’s too technical, too segmented, too awkward. Much like saying that facial symmetry determines beauty, these categories describe the metric rather than the quality itself, and end up being intensely disappointing as a definition, even if scientifically accurate.

So, what gives? What is this godforsaken paradox of a definition that we’re chasing after? A great number of very intelligent people have tried to answer that, and out of these attempts, a few intriguing theories have emerged. The first definition that comes to mind derives from the IQ test. Researching IQ tests has been frustratingly opaque, but the general feeling seemed to be that they are tests that measure ability in a number of different categories (such as the ones listed above), and then assign a value based on your performance relative to the rest of the population. Given that, the IQ test definition of intelligence is a very categorical one, using ability relative to the rest of the population in a number of different skills. Despite being incredibly well known, and reasonably useful, the IQ test is not without its flaws. It doesn’t truly capture the entire scope of a person’s mind, meaning that its working definition of intelligence leaves out things like creativity, unique perspective, morality, and practical intelligence. Another uncomfortable fact is that tests have been shown to be culturally specific and historically specific. and do not account for different conceptions of intelligence between cultures. All in all, I think IQ is best seen as an imperfect tool that gives a useful part of the picture.

Moving past IQ, there are many fascinating theories of intelligence that are relevant in psychology today. One of the most significant and foundational ones is the theory of general intelligence pioneered by Charles Spearman. The theory comes from the interesting trend that when testing the cognitive categories I mentioned earlier (e.g. spatial reasoning, verbal intelligence), people tended to have strongly correlated scores. Those who performed well in just one category also tended to do well in most other categories, despite being theoretically unrelated skills. This trend gave rise to the idea of a general intelligence or “g factor,” a cognitive function that precedes the more specific categories we measure and presumably creates them. This idea is actually a very intuitive one. Looking at an excellent student, we are not surprised when they have impressive scores in a wide variety of subjects - in fact, we expect it of them.

Despite this correlation between categories, everyone has their own unique set of abilities and talents, and this set is almost unimaginably diverse. From this idea emerges one of the largest critiques of the General Intelligence theory: can intelligence really be boiled down to just one dimension? There are so many different kinds of genius; it hardly seems fair to lump Shakespeare and Ramanujan into the same category. Even outside of purely academic comparisons, we can look at other metrics like creativity and wisdom that also affect our perception of a person’s intelligence. Can those things all really be contained in something as singular as the g factor? It seems unlikely. In order to rectify this issue, a number of theories that followed General Intelligence center around the idea of multiple intelligences. Thurstone’s primary mental abilities, Gardner’s multiple intelligences, and Sternberg’s triarchic theory are three of the more relevant ones. These each have their own advantages and flaws, but as a group, I think this is a good direction to take in accurately defining intelligence. The acknowledgement of intelligence as something multifaceted is important.

My favourite of the three is also the most succinct: Sternberg’s triarchic theory. It splits intelligence into three categories: analytical (the kind measured by IQ tests); creative (the ability to create novel and different ideas); and practical intelligence (solving problems in daily life and managing the interactions between you and your environment). This is quite the elegant trio, and the more I think about this theory, the more I like it. It has an incredible feeling of completeness, while also staying within three simple categories.

But even with nuanced and tested theories, something is still missing, the answer to the most critical question: What is intelligence? We can go on and on about its categories and features, but even the impressive battery of theories above doesn’t quite get to that elegant truth that I find myself chasing. So let me steer away from science and studies for a moment, and veer into the realm of poets and romantics. This would hardly be an interesting article if I simply summarized the work of others, so I’ll go out on a limb and offer my own definition, the best one I’m capable of giving:

Intelligence is how well you can understand the world around you.

I wish I could phrase it more poetically, but I believe the idea stands true. The intellectuals we idolize, the geniuses of centuries past, were all in one way or another people who understood the world very deeply, and then made something of it. That crucial factor, the underlying truth that unites the savvy politician, the visionary artist, the brilliant mathematician, and the wise sage, is that they understand the functioning of the world better than the others around them. They understand it differently, each in their own way and in their own field, but it is that one quality that unites them. The concept also works in reverse. Why do we scoff at a foolish child or stubborn anti-vaxxer? Easy. Despite the evidence, they have no understanding of the world around them. They do not see the facts of life and, as a result, operate in a deeply flawed manner. This definition also distinguishes between knowledge and intelligence, which are often difficult to separate. Knowledge is how much you know, intelligence is how well you understand. A less intelligent person may know far more than a more intelligent one, but the more intelligent person would find it easier to learn new concepts and understand more complex ideas.

The beauty of this idea comes in two pieces: the simplicity; and the universality. I’ll admit the definition is vague, but so is the thing we’re chasing. I know many people will disagree with what I’ve written above, and rightly so. I’d be a fool to think that my definition is even remotely complete, and I’m sure you can think of a number of examples where my metric is false. But even despite that, I think there are many cases where it’s true, and I encourage you to apply it to every example of intelligence you can imagine. It’s the only definition I could think of that somehow balances the incredible diversity of human thought, and applies everywhere with equal accuracy; from comprehending social complexities to differential calculus. So, I’d like to end this article with a challenge. A challenge to make sense of the world around you, and to come up with your own definition of intelligence. It’s incredibly difficult, but equally interesting and rewarding. And hey, if you come up with one you like, send it to me. As Immuanel Kant famously said: “Dare to think!” Good luck, folks.