Intelligence and expertise

This week, I read Looking for miss Sargam by Shubha Mudgal. She is a well known singer. This is her first book of fiction, a collection of short stories mainly of misadventures from the world of music. When reading the book, what struck me was the quality of the author’s intelligence. I could sense if not pinpoint intelligence evident through minute observations, non-biting satire, and her turn of phrase.

This article is not a review of that book, but a discussion on what intelligence is. It is not an easy term to define; even intelligent people have struggled to offer precise definitions. Intelligence can be felt. I infrequently come across books where I feel the author’s intelligence. It doesn’t necessarily mean the book is great. But it is delightful to see intelligence spread across the pages. I develop a closer bond to the author. I become confident I will see flashes of intelligence in the remaining pages. It is rare for an author to spray intelligence over the first few pages, to lose it later.

Here I would like to split intelligence into two categories. Profession-specific and overall. I will call the profession-related intelligence as “expertise”. Expertise is often confused with intelligence. It is unfortunate I will have to illustrate my point with names. Names of public figures. When something is hard to define, it is better understood through description and examples.

I will begin with Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar, two cricketing icons from India. One after the other, they dominated Indian cricket for nearly four decades. Equally exciting for spectators and statisticians, stadium stands are named after them in their lifetime.

Sunil Gavaskar has continued his association with cricket. He is perhaps the best TV commentator in terms of the insights he offers. It is not easy to offer fresh insights for nearly twenty years in a particular sport.

Most Indian cricketers, certainly those from Bombay, rush to him to check the contracts they wish to sign with sponsors. Gavaskar is not a trained lawyer, but he is trusted more to scrutinize a contract and give suggestions for improving it.

Since he was a young cricketer, stories were heard as to how he lingered at the airport after arriving from a tour abroad. If the plane landed at 11 pm, he would wait at the airport for more than an hour before passing immigration. This allowed him to be technically abroad for another day, taking him closer to the non-resident status that legitimately saved taxes on his earnings. His company reportedly delegates newspaper column writing to other cricketers. A lion’s share of those earnings goes to Gavaskar. For this year’s world cup in the UK, his company had offered expensive packages that included tickets to the semi-finals and final, along with guest houses. Well-to-do Indian fans bought those hassle-free packages. Sunil Gavaskar is everywhere, delivering lectures, inventing new projects, writing books, tweeting sharp observations, chairing technical committees, thinking about cricket all the time.

His stature was endorsed by the Supreme Court of India. When BCCI, India’s cricket body was in a mess, the Supreme Court sua sponte appointed Gavaskar as BCCI’s president, an incredibly unusual step by the court.

Though his activities revolve around cricket, Sunil Gavaskar’s intelligence is an all-pervasive intelligence. He is intelligent on the cricket field, and off it. If he was not a cricketer, he would have still succeeded in life, in some other field. The quality of his intelligence can be felt when you hear him, meet him or read what he writes.

Sachin Tendulkar, India’s biggest batting god, is a cricketing genius as well. He owns more records, fame, wealth and recognition than Gavaksar. But his intelligence is a profession-related intelligence. He is super-intelligent, a genius, when holding a bat in his hand. Out of a cricket field, retired from the game, he is simply an ordinary ex-cricketer as far as intelligence goes. This is not to demean him. He is a decent bloke, respectable, smart, smiling, pleasant, modest, and immensely likeable. But the quality of intelligence seen in Sunny Gavaskar is absent in Tendulkar.

Amitabh Bachchan is another example of an intelligent person. This is not only about expertise. In fact, there are several actors superior to Bachchan as far as acting goes. But Bachchan, like Gavaskar, shines with an all-round intelligence. Maybe it can be called a glint in the brain.

I had the fortune of briefly working with Amitabh Bachchan on an Indo-Russian film called Ajooba. I was working as the Russian interpreter. One morning, I found myself alone with him on the sets. He was super-punctual and so was I. A few skulls were lying on the set. They would be used in a scene that day. Having nothing to do, we were strolling on the set. Amitabh was picking the skulls up, observing them. He picked up the smallest one and said with a straight face, “this must be Dimple Kapadia’s.” This was not just humour. I felt only an intelligent man could conceive such a comment. (Dimple Kapadia, the film’s leading lady had absolutely stunning looks, and brains that came nowhere close).  

Rajesh Khanna or Aamir Khan became superstars. But their intelligence is clearly exclusively related to their professions.

When any person practices a profession for sufficiently long time, he develops insights; he becomes a master of that subject. This is expertise, not to be mistaken for intelligence. In India, getting into the top medical or engineering universities is diabolically cutthroat. Less than the top one percent qualifies for the super-competitive exams. Despite that, I have met several doctors and IIT (Indian Institute of technology) graduates who are positively unintelligent. They can skillfully conduct bypass surgeries or develop software for running of the city metro, but outside their expertise area, they can have a fairly low IQ.

Many Olympic gold winners or Grand slam winners in tennis may have little or no intelligence. Even brain sports may have nothing to do with intelligence.

I have been privileged to meet seven Chess World Champions. For a brief period, I worked with Gary Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov. Viswanathan Anand is a friend. In terms of intellect, I would rank Anand at the top, followed by Kasparov. Karpov gets the bottom place. A genius at the chess board, I found him fairly dumb otherwise. Dumb is rather a strong word for a World Chess Champion, but when you hear Karpov ramble, that’s the first word that comes to mind. Karpov’s intelligence is purely chess related.

My judgment is, of course, subjective. It is likely to offend the fans of Tendulkar, Aamir Khan or Karpov. Because people usually confuse expertise and intelligence. There is no shame in not being intelligent, just like there is no shame in not being good-looking or tall. Short or ugly people more easily accept their shortness or ugliness because they can check it in the mirror. Mirrors don’t exist for intelligence.

What can be done with this information? Or is it simply an intellectual exercise? Well, if you are a recruiter, you may want to check if a person is truly intelligent or simply a subject expert. In today’s world where technology changes rapidly, you need people who can adapt themselves well. Intelligent people can adapt more easily to change. One reason why Sunil Gavaskar and Amitabh Bachchan, both in their seventies, had such lengthy varied careers is that they have been reinventing themselves all the time.

When you wish to find a life partner, you may be better off looking for intelligence rather than expertise. Subject expertise (dermatology or chemical engineering) is fairly useless in making a marriage successful.

Companies and individuals must keep an eye for intelligent people. They are usually good company, because you can discuss everything and anything with them. One doesn’t need to be intelligent to recognize intelligence, but it helps.

Ravi