📚Series Unorganized and Fragmented: Is it hard to live if your intelligence is too low or too high⁉️

Lead

In modern society, "intelligence" is treated as an essential condition for living.
School education trains the ability to understand structures, and society evaluates it with numbers.
So, how should those with weak "intelligence" live?
And conversely, can those who have become "too intelligent" truly be happy?

The movie "I Am Sam" and Daniel Keyes' novel "Flowers for Algernon"
illuminate this question from opposite directions.
By placing these two works side by side,
we are forced to rethink the true nature of "the ability to adapt to society."

⸻

Table of Contents
1. A society where structural intelligence is valued
2. "I Am Sam"—A father with weak structural intelligence
3. "Flowers for Algernon"—A man who acquired structural intelligence
4. The point where the two stories intersect
5. What ability is society overlooking?
6. Where should we breathe?

⸻

Main Text

1. A society where structural intelligence is valued

Modern society highly values people who can understand structures, read rules, and predict the future.
Let's call this power "structural intelligence" here.
In school education, certification systems, and corporate evaluations, this intelligence is quantified and ranked in every situation.

The "iron cage" that Max Weber spoke of
is not rationality itself, but a society where only rationality has become the sole value.
The problem lies in the fact that structural intelligence has shifted from a "necessary condition" to the "only ability."

⸻

2. "I Am Sam"—A father with weak structural intelligence

Sam, the protagonist of "I Am Sam," has weak structural intelligence.
However, he is not completely lacking in intelligence.
He can understand rules and he makes an effort. It's just that his "speed" and "precision" do not meet social standards.

On the other hand, what he possesses extremely strongly is
the power to maintain his relationship with his daughter without breaking it.
He responds immediately to emotions, shares anxieties, and stays by her side without explaining.
By not solving problems, he protects the relationship.

I would like to call this ability "relationship-generating ability" here.
It cannot be measured and is difficult to evaluate, but
it is a fundamental power for people to connect with the world as human beings.

⸻

3. "Flowers for Algernon"—A man who acquired structural intelligence

Charlie, the protagonist of "Flowers for Algernon," rapidly acquires structural intelligence through surgery.
Language, logic, abstract thinking, and understanding of social structures.
He becomes able to read and interpret the world "correctly."

But as the price for that, he loses things.
Unconditional trust, the safety of being allowed to be misunderstood, and the margin in relationships where he didn't have to explain.
He realizes that kindness was "something given from above."

He did not step outside the iron cage.
He saw the structure of the cage more clearly than anyone else.

⸻

4. The point where the two stories intersect

Sam cannot understand society, but he can be with people.
Charlie understands society too well, and he can no longer be with people.

What emerges here is a cruel symmetry.
It is hard to live if your structural intelligence is weak.
It is hard to live if your structural intelligence is too strong.

The problem is not the amount of intelligence.
It lies in the fact that society defines only one type of ability as the "power to live."

⸻

5. What ability is society overlooking?

Relationship-generating ability is not a power that moves society forward.
But it is an essential power for society not to collapse.
The experience of not having a relationship severed even when you fail.
Time where you are allowed to remain in a state of not knowing.
A place where evaluation is paused.

What "I Am Sam" showed was
the danger of a society that forces this ability onto individuals without institutional support.
What "Algernon" showed was
the loneliness of trying to live in the world with only structural intelligence.

⸻

6. Where should we breathe?

Neither of these two stories is a success story.
They are stories about living while accepting defeat.

Structural intelligence and relationship-generating ability are not enough on their own.
I think what is truly being questioned is
a social design that does not divide the two, but allows us to move between them.

⸻

Afterword

The story that "if you become smart, you will be saved"—what about "people who were too smart (people with extremely high structural intelligence)"?
Having said that, one cannot say that "you can live on kindness alone."
The two works do not provide easy answers to either.

That is precisely why they are worth watching and reading now.
Because even though they are other people's stories,
they question our own conditions for survival.

⸻

🗒️Keyword Explanation in the Article

✍️Structural Intelligence
The ability to understand social rules, systems, and causal relationships, and to act rationally.
The intelligence most easily evaluated in modern society.

✍️Relationship-Generating Ability
The ability to maintain relationships without breaking them, even without solving problems.
Includes emotional sharing, maintaining margins, and tolerance for uncertainty.

✍️Iron Cage
A social structure shown by Max Weber where rationality has become an end in itself.
Refers to a state where humans are treated as functions.