top of page
Im sorry sir but I'm afraid your cat has contracted curiosity.
Don't Call Me Smart!
So, a little something about me!
One of my pet peeves is actually (and I fully acknowledge this may sound a bit snobbish) when someone calls me, or anyone else in fact, smart. Ok calm down! Before you get your pitchforks let me explain.
Personally, it's not so much about what's said, but what’s not said. Sure it feels good to be complimented and being called things like “smart” or “talented” or even “brilliant”, but I really think these words really don’t say enough about a person, and to some may even be taken as an insult.
So with that banger of an intro, in this article, I will be providing a polarised commentary on the education system, the connotations of being called “smart” as well as the genetics of being gifted. That's a lot to cover so let's crack on shall we!
Being called smart
So to address what I said in the introduction about being called smart, I definitely don’t see anything wrong with being “smart” but I feel for a lot of cases, it's a gross misconception. Personally, I don’t like being called smart because I think it downplays the hardwork and effort that a person has put in to achieve what they did. What people see are the accolades for academic excellence, the 7A1s for O levels or 43 Points for IB and going on stage to receive awards. But what they don’t see are the hours and hours and hours and hours of back breaking, hair pulling and head banging hours spent behind a computer or on the desk to achieve that moment of success.
​And I think the same goes for literally any field, sports, academics, art, literature, acting you name it. We like to look at those “prodigies” and It's easy for most to chalk these things up to words like “brilliant” or “talented”, because the reality is hard to face… that could be us as well but we simply aren’t working hard enough. We don’t want to admit to ourselves that we can also be just as successful as these “brilliant” people because, for lack of a better term, we are afraid of the work that is required of us. So it becomes a lot easier to make an excuse and say what they are doing is simply impossible and attribute that as something one is born with. But in my opinion, no one is born talented. Sure we have certain genetic dispositions that make us more likely to succeed in one field than another, but that does not mean we cannot put in the time and effort to make ourselves good in whatever field we are passionate in. Who’s to say you can’t be the next Elon Musk or Michael Jordan?
So that's why for me, whenever I see really exceller people, those who are heads and shoulders above the rest, my first thought isn’t that they are “talented” or “gifted”, my first thought is to wonder just how much work they must have put in to get to where they are now. What I suggest is this, instead of thinking how “smart” someone is, maybe we should start thinking about how hard they worked. And to quote the Joe Rogan podcast “No one is talented, some people are just more obsessed than others”
​Genetics of being gifted
So just now, I touched a little on genetic dispositions and being born talented. In this section, I will address just how much of that is true and if there really is “gifted gene”
Aspergers, Savants Syndrome and Theory of compensation
I will preface by saying that I have covered these topics before under another article I have written called “autism spectrum disorder” which I go more into detail around the biology behind these syndromes and disorders.
Briefly, Aspergers is a mild form of autism where a child will have social impairments and lack certain societal awareness and communication skills expected of a person their age. However, though not all of them, many who are affected by aspergers have also exhibited exceptional executive function, mathematical competence or memory far in above the average levels. Hence this is why when analysing the statistics, It becomes apparent that many child prodigies, particularly in the field of maths and science, have Aspergers. In fact, the world's richest man, Elon musk, counts himself as one of these individuals as he too has Aspergers. This cognitive phenomenon has since been classified as Savants syndrome where people with various developmental disorders exhibit amazing ability or talent in another field, which is based upon the theory of compensation where due to a lack of development in one cognitive function, the brain “compensates” for it by improving other areas. I think it is quite similar to how someone who was born blind will have greater hearing or tactile functions to compensate for the lack of sight. So clearly, this shows that a person is born gifted right? Well, yes and no.
I do concede that there are some genetic factors that do impact one’s affinity to a subject, but I my opinion still stands that anyone can excel given they are committed enough. Of course, we’ve all seen those “gifted” kids who are able to read at a young age and understand sums before they even learn to read, but I think to remain that way requires effort. In fact, more often than not, those who are seen to excel later on in life, are actually those “average joes” who simply have a passion and love for the field they are in. Terence Tao, Nobel Laureate and touted as the greatest mathematician for our generation, is actually pretty average genetically speaking, but simply has a love for numbers since a young age.
And I think this applies to outside of academics as well, such in the world of sports.
Hercules Gene
More formally, known as the MSTN gene, the presence of this gene is sort of a predeterminer for a person's strength and muscular potential. The human body has certain mechanisms to prevent us from building too much muscle mass, like a governor on our bodies. More specifically, myostatin proteins are what apparently put the breaks on additional muscle growth, preventing muscles from getting too big. From an evolutionary standpoint, this does serve its purpose, as even though muscles can grow ever stronger, there comes a point where they exceed the tensile strength of our joints and ligaments. It’s the same principle why we only recruit 100% of our muscle fibres during an adrenaline rush from the fight or flight response, as to put it simply, we are too strong for our own bodies. Of course Ethnicity, Height, gender and environment all play a role in the development of an individuals physical faculties, but at the pinnacle of that is still the MSTN gene, or hercules gene as some like to call it. The MTSN gene gives instructions for how much myostatin to produce. Hence those with the hercules gene have an abnormal MTSN gene that causes a much lower level of myostatin thereby allowing the individual to build more muscle. This abnormality seems more prevalent in nordic regions or in people with close ancestry to the nordic countries. For example, world strongest man Eddie Hall actually has that gene which was what allowed him to pack much more muscle on his frame compared to his competitors.
.jpg)
However, though I acknowledge that genetics do play a role in athletic performance and can influence an individual's degree of success, I also think that environment and work ethic form the bulk of this differentiation. Take for example marathon runners, many of the worlds best marathon runners, including Eliod Kipchoge who ran a sub 2 hour marathon, were born and bred in kenya. Though genetic predispositions were certainly a factor, the main contributor to their success and dominance in this field is the environment that they grew up in. Kenya is a developing country, so many have had to run or walk several miles to and fro school everyday which build their lung capacity and V02 max. Coupled with the fact that many parts of Kenya lay several thousand feet above sea level means that the air is thin, further building their oxygen efficiency and haemoglobin levels. And I believe it's that combination of both genetic factors and environment which produces world class athletes.
Then there is also work ethic. Fact of the matter is that, for most people, they may never know their true genetic potential because they are unwilling to put in the necessary work. So it comes down to the fact that though genetics only really start making a difference when it comes down to the super elites, separating the 1st place finishers from the runners up. But it is this differentiation which many people use as an excuse for why they are not succeeding in certain areas rather than a lack of effort and commitment.
So in short, though genetics do play a role, for most people, this should not discourage you from trying your best. Yes you may never have a body like Arnold Schwarzenegger no matter how hard you try, but that shouldn't become an excuse for why you can’t get a 6 pack!
Our education system: Pressure cooker system
.jpg)
I admit that I have detailed certain aspects of our education system in previous articles, namely the mental health article. However, in light of the recent changes to our education system which is seemingly headed towards a more inclusive and less pressuring system, I felt the need to give my comments on the current proposed system as well as the academic landscape of singapore.
As mentioned previously, Singapore’s education is often compared to a pressure cooker where the frequent examinations and competitive environment push some to excel while leaving others behind unable to keep up with the workload and stress. And although all education systems are intrinsically competitive and this serves to filter out those who are academically talented and reward those who are more hardworking, it is my opinion that this has been taken to the extreme in Singapore. I do think exams are fine and they are a good indicator for both academic ability and character in an individual, but when too much emphasis is placed on the final result, this becomes an issue. Having gone through upwards of 12 years in the education system, I hope I’m not being overly presumptuous when I say hold somewhat of an informed opinion on the matter. It is to my belief and from my personal experiences, that students nowadays are too attached to the final result that they miss out on what’s truly important. To me, exams are an arbitrary metric that have been used to ascertain an individual intellectual ability and predict future success, and that in itself is inherently flawed. Exams are a test of understanding and knowledge in predetermined fields, and although they do give some indication of one's abilities, they are far too narrow and do not capture the broad scope of abilities that a person may have or may develop later on in life. Personally, I scored 240 for my PSLE, a score which, if not for my affiliation to ACSI, would not get me into any of the “branded” schools. In fact, when I first joined ACSI as a secondary 1, I still remember they even gave us a speech about what our O-level predicted grades will be depending on our PSLE scores, and mine was an L1R5 of 10 or above. Can you believe that? Why should there be a glass ceiling on what grade I can get based solely on what I scored for PSLE which would be 4 years out of date by the time I take O levels? Perhaps I am a bit too jaded to be giving an objective commentary on this topic, but personally, I do feel that too much emphasis is placed on the grades, and that leads to mounting pressure for students to do well which subsequently leads to mental health issues which is what is currently plaguing students today.
Having said that, I will say that I am also not personally in favour of the recent changes tour education system and the removal of mid year exams for primary and secondary school pupils. Though I do recognize the reasoning behind such a movement, to reduce the academic stress for students to get them to “like learning” again. However, from my experience, giving students an extended break is nothing more than shooting yourself in the foot. In most cases, primary and secondary school students lack the self-control and discipline to study of their own volition. Though that's not to say all of them are like that, I think for the ‘typical' 8 to 15 year old, their priorities lie with playing computer games and having fun. Take away Mid-year examinations, and that removes a speed bump for students to catch themselves and also places more strain on parents and even teachers who have to pick up the slack and motivate students to study. Furthermore, I would also posit the argument that having just 1 final year exam does not reduce stress for students when looking at it on an annular scale, but rather condense this stress into the second half of the year. And this may be further exacerbated by the fact that without mid years, parents, teachers and students will have little to gauge on where they stand academically which really intensifies the stress felt for final year exams with a “make it or break it mentality”
I find it all really quite ironic. Today, we live in a society where mediocrity is often despised, however we also like to turn a blind eye to what it takes to break through that mediocrity. We look up to “brilliant people” and idolise them, but we don’t truly understand what it took for them to reach where they are now. Students who excel are idolised by their peers and teachers, and this not only causes negative pressure on their peers to work harder, but also pushes top scorers even harder to retain their position for fear that losing that spot would somehow devalue their self-worth. And I think that really encapsulates the zeitgeist of my generation.
bottom of page