I’ve never seen a woodchuck chuck wood, any more than I’ve seen a groundhog hogging ground. And yet, both make about as much sense as calling a person of mere functional intelligence a ‘doctor of philosophy.’
Years ago, my firm prepared a pitch presentation for a large California company that had requested an operating strategy. Along with two associates, I flew to Los Angeles the night before, ensuring we were well-prepared for the next day’s presentation, dressed impeccably in our finest suits with matching belts and shoes.
The following morning, as we were escorted down a hallway to the corporate conference room, I noticed what appeared to be a custodial associate struggling to maneuver a large refuse container on wheels into a nearby closet. The man was gray-haired, slight in build, and weathered in appearance, sporting denim jeans that were too short, 1970s-style red-striped athletic socks, and an unkempt, pronounced beard—to my mind, an image that fit the prototypical custodian.
Setting my briefcase and materials aside, I stepped over to help. “Can I give you a hand?” I asked, holding the broom cart and the door open as he guided the container into the closet. He nodded in appreciation, and I rolled the broom cart in behind him, offering a smile and a thumbs-up as he finished.
Twenty minutes later, as we waited in the corporate conference room, we engaged in casual conversation with the executive team about recent industry developments. They assured us their CEO would be arriving shortly. A few moments later, the CEO entered the room—to my surprise, and slight embarrassment, it was the very man I had assisted earlier.
We won the contract, edging out a longstanding incumbent who had served the company for years.
I often reflect on this anecdote as a reminder of the multifaceted nature of intelligence and the importance of recognizing its diverse expressions. It sets the stage for exploring the concept of intelligence types, which I believe are critical to individual success in both professional and social contexts. Not everyone excels in the same set of skills, and it is a mistake to dismiss those whose abilities differ from our own as unfit for positions of significance or leadership.
Some individuals possess a core set of intelligences that may be entirely unrecognizable to those who rely solely on their own personal or socially familiar functional intelligences.
The Real Diversity
The following is an exploration of the diverse intelligence types I have encountered, employed, or assessed throughout my multifaceted and demanding career. These intelligence types are broadly inspired by Robert J. Sternberg’s concept of adaptive intelligence1 and Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences.2 Building upon these frameworks, I propose a hierarchical model that categorizes intelligence into core and functional types—an observation derived from my work with hundreds of clients across corporate and national infrastructure challenges over the past four decades.
Rather than delve into detailed explanations of each intelligence type, I invite the reader to assess these facets of human intelligence through the lens of their own life experiences. The chart organizes intelligence into a foundation of core intelligences, which then manifest as functional or applied intelligences across various social and professional contexts. For clarity, I have labeled each dual-blended segment of functional intelligence with a representative celebrity or meme name—figures whom I believe most readily exemplify these traits (though not perfectly, of course).
Clockwise from the top, the segments are represented by the following figures: Alan Turing, the computational scientist; Richard Dawkins, the naturalist and evolutionary biologist; Meghan, the archetype of a biology graduate; Martha, the biblical figure embodying practicality and service; Frank, the quintessential machine technician or electrician; Wang, the stereotype of a developer of assembly instructions, program code, or lab procedures; Sammy Hagar, the articulate and talented musician; Jack Black, the comedic performer and versatile musician; Taylor Tomlinson, the brilliant and relatable comedian; Deion Sanders, the dynamic football player, celebrity, and coach; Tiger Woods, the disciplined and focused golfer; and Carl Sagan, the visionary academic and science communicator.
Each archetype name in the chart above represents a unique set of valuable strengths that can be applied effectively across a wide range of corporate and social contexts. However, these archetypes are not without their pitfalls. They can succumb to the trap of perceiving their specialized strength as the only one relevant to all situations. Each form of talented intelligence may develop the belief that it is uniquely suited to ‘rule the world,’ falling prey to the foible of viewing its particular brand of intelligence as inherently singular or even superior.
I’ve never seen a woodchuck chuck wood, any more than I’ve seen a groundhog hogging ground. And yet, both make about as much sense as calling a person of mere functional intelligence a ‘doctor of philosophy.’
A person who excels in core intelligence can adapt to a variety of functional intelligences, yet still pose a threat to—and evoke the resentment of—their practitioners.
Furthermore, without a grounding in more philosophical or core types of intelligence (represented by the green segment at the center of the chart), these strengths risk devolving into their own pathologies, ultimately undermining both their effectiveness and balance.
Fake skeptics and debunkers, for instance, often believe themselves to be smarter than everyone else, yet they frequently exhibit the lowest range of the functional skills cited above, or more importantly, lack a critical essence of core intelligence.
As one of my favorite cinematic and comic book characters, Robert E. Howard’s ‘Thulsa Doom’ from Conan the Barbarian, once said, “Contemplate this upon the Tree of Woe.”
The Ethical Skeptic, “An Assay of Core vs Functional Intelligence Types”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 18 Nov 2024; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/2024/11/18/an-assay-of-core-vs-functional-intelligence-types/
- Sternberg RJ. Adaptive Intelligence: Its Nature and Implications for Education. Education Sciences. 2021; 11(12):823. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120823
- Davis, Gardener, et al.; The Theory of Multiple Intelligences; Harvard Graduate School of Education; https://pz.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Theory%20of%20MI.pdf
I am reading Ian McGilchrist’s The Master and his Emissary which posits two different manner of attention, and ultimately different ways of apprehending and comprehending the world. McGilchrist provides another dimension to functional intelligence types that is interesting and raises many questions about the nature of thought and intelligence.
I keep bumping up to people who have “beliefs” that are not supported by data/studies or facts – and yet are disinclined to acknowledge this lack – again believing that the data/studies/facts DO exist and DO support the original “belief”. At that point I am generally at a loss for words. Dealing with the “If this were actually true, I would know it” has left me unable to reconcile their innate intelligence with their inability or unwillingness to contemplate they might actually be wrong, or they might not know all there is to know about a thing. I don’t… Read more »
The opposite of a ‘true believer’ or ‘conspiracy theorists’ is a Narrative Ninny. They buy any official narrative without any evidence or logical argument, thinking that mere repetition in media is enough of an epistemology.
praedicate evidentia is the fallacy of implying that there exists a massive evidence and study base behind one’s contention, but never showing it nor being able to produce it. A good portion of what we call ‘settled science’ is pushed in this manner.
TES
> dressed impeccably in our finest suits with matching belts and shoes.
Dear TES, I love your content, but this is the most American sentence I’ve read all year. You either have a fine suit, or a belt – never the two at once.
A belt means that you have bought your pret-a-porter trousers in a store, and therefore they are not fine. Tailor made trousers that actually fit you don’t even have belt loops.
I said ‘finest,’ not ‘fine.’ Those are two different things altogether. For me, I would never be caught dead in a suit without a belt that required that much fussing and expense. It is the epitome of human arrogance and worthlessness (not saying you are this by any means, you were merely citing a distinction, and I am merely making a point). My clients would have seen me as elitist, detached, and callous regarding the hard human matters with which I needed to engage – people’s lives and jobs. Workers would not even listen to what I had to say.… Read more »
While working for my dads small waterproofing company years ago I learned that our next french drain job was at Chief Justice John Roberts house. Determined to ensure a future customer (as my dad was soon to retire) I dressed for the occasion. I wore $20 purple hospital scrubs cut into shorts with scissors and unhemmed such that the threads dangled as they unraveled, a ripped t shirt and a fishing vest. I introduced myself with a smile and a firm handshake then worked like a dog, lounging shirtless on the lawn at lunch while my coworkers taught me spanish.… Read more »
Thanks TES! Good read, as always. This is an Interesting subject that I’ve long been curious about.
Always love to see a Conan reference. Have you had the chance to read his other works beyond the Conan collection? REH was a great American. I’ll leave this favorite of mine…
“POLITICS and book-learning is bad enough took separate; together they’re a blight and a curse.”
From “Pistol Politics”
A friend introduced me to this 1991 book by Helen Palmer, which I read 3 times with a yellow highlighter, early last year. The Enneagram: Understanding Yourself and the Others In Your Life https://www.amazon.com/Enneagram-Understanding-Yourself-Others-Your/dp/0062506838The Enneagram appears to be an ancient archetypal pattern system of 9 main types, each with 3 subtypes, one of which is atypical to the type, and with a range of human development from basic to realized (or some such). There are online tests. I took a couple to see my type. They didn’t quite agree, and did not fit what I eventually understood, which does fit… Read more »
This has got me thinking. “Fake skeptics and debunkers, for instance, often believe themselves to be smarter than everyone else, yet they frequently exhibit the lowest range of the functional skills cited above, or more importantly, lack a critical essence of core intelligence.”