Whenever people — which here is specifically meant to mean ‘adults‘ — want to condemn teenagers for frivolity or lazy thinking, they always seem to zero in on conversational topics. In particular, gossip, along the line of who’s dating whom, or which friends are on the outs, or other new and occasionally exciting developments.

This seems not only hypocritical, considering gossip doesn’t seem to be something people grow out of, but also unfair. Humans are social creatures, and our society is built around observing and understanding other people. Besides, antisocial tendencies are frequently regarded as either a symptom of a disorder or a disorder in themselves, so what’s the better option? To abstain from conversation and being thought odd and difficult, or participate and being thought shallow and ridiculous?

Of course, there is a middle ground, all things being best in moderation. But why is leaning too far in either direction such a bad thing?

Or rather, why is an abundance of interest in people such a bad thing? I thought the in thing to do was to tell children and teenagers to pursue their passions and dreams (while being sure to not quit our day jobs because things probably won’t work out). Communications is supposed to be a booming field in today’s mass-market-media world, isn’t it? 

And to navigate those treacherous waters of people intersecting at an especially tumultuous time of their lives is a cultivated skill, speaking as someone who has tried and failed to use it. It just isn’t viewed that way.

But then, the way we look at intelligence has always been subjective, and to be honest, rather screwy. 

It takes at least as much knowledge and experience to understand the parts of an engine and then disassemble, reassemble, and fix it as it does to write a good essay, but one is supposedly of more intellectual value. Raising a happy, healthy, productive child—or supervising a class full of them—is as difficult and as vital to our society as designing buildings or bridges. But one of those career paths carries far more societal weight, not to mention a far higher salary, than the other. 

Or take something hotly debated in my lifetime — the validity of standardized tests. Repeated studies have shown that the only constant correlations found to high test scores are parent income and education level — which both translate, as far as I can tell, to an understanding of how to play that particular game. 

Even IQ tests, often held up as something grand and starkly factual, are subjective. No two people see the world in the same way, after all. In addition, it is acknowledged that such tests fail to account for all “types of intelligence” — such as creative or social attention. 

A more recent theory is that there are nine types of intelligence; nine different areas in which different people may develop the skills to understand and process that aspect of the world. The amount of each one varies, but the theory ranks them all at the same level — placing the same value on social intelligence as mechanical. 

Our society is changing and adapting, and as we adapt and change with it, so do our ideas and perceptions of the world. It can be argued that a skill is a skill, no matter what area, and there are so many areas vital to the functioning of the world we live in that everyone’s skills should be able to find a place. What’s the use, or the point, of holding every single, wildly different person to the same sole standard?

— Nina Collay is a student at Thornton Academy, Class of 2017, who can frequently be found listening to music, reading, wrestling with a heavy cello case, or poking at the keyboard of an uncooperative laptop.