Big dumb jock. That's the image of the collegiate athlete. Doesn't really belong in school, just there for sports, otherwise intellectually unfit. But that's really a horrible misjudgment. It assumes there is only one kind of intelligence even when we know otherwise.

Picture yourself in a foreign country. You don't speak the language so you appear ignorant, at least, if not stupid. You might have the exact answer to people's problems but if you can't express it, no one can know of your intelligence. So is language the only measure of intelligence? Is it a necessary tool for intellectual evaluation?

How about art? We take it for granted that gifted artists are intelligent but you can't do justice to a painting by describing it. No one should evaluate an opera based on the author's description (or the reviewer's). We believe artists are intelligent mainly because of their unusual creativity.

Creativity plays a role in other fields as well, from business to politics. Larry Ellison never graduated from college but he's earned respect because of the creative way he's formed a business. Our own president was a poor student but he's a world leader because of his soft skills.

Still somehow athletes are stupid even though they accomplish things the rest of us cannot. That's not intelligence, goes the traditional thinking, that's just animal athleticism, instinct. Bull.

Anyone who has followed sports at the elite level will tell you that "games" are very complicated, intellectual puzzles. What's more, the knowledge they require must be internalized so it can be used in a split second. Take a look at football playbook some time and see if you understand it. Now imagine you have to understand all the plays, your role in them, other people's roles, and the chess game of what the other team will do. Now imagine all that as it changes from second to second. And make yourself respond in an instant, even when others are trying to prevent you - physically, mentally, psychologically - and you are in serious pain. That is the product of a brain at least as agile as the body.

Nonetheless, we think athletes are dumb. This is because of the way we measure intelligence in our society and the way we hand out rewards. Society rewards good scholars with well-paid jobs that buy expensive cars and homes. But then, the same is true of elite athletes. Yet somehow we feel that is different.

The argument is that sports are not productive and so not to be valued. How productive is opera? Politics (think about it)? Think about your own job and consider how meaningful it is to the world. Most of us are really just doing our portion, punching the clock, not moving mountains. We don't do anything others couldn't do for themselves, we just save them time and they do likewise for us.

Besides, there are plenty of successful scholars who can't get rich because of the way society values their intelligence. Are we to assume journalists are stupid because they are not rich? Maybe we should. Or maybe we should recognize that there are many different kinds of intelligence, each applicable in its own way. And maybe we should judge on the basis of what people do with what they have.