It’s said that politicians answer the
questions they want to be asked. That is, they disregard the questions
put to them and answer their own. Most of the time, they get away with
it. However, the politician falls into trouble if he doesn’t know the
questions he wishes to be asked.
So far, our president’s answers to questions from the press have left
many of his compatriots disappointed, ashamed and sometimes, disturbed.
This is because, besides his education,
it’s almost an impossible notion to consider an incumbent president or
any head of state to be unintelligent; i.e. if enormous influence,
resources and the command of the security forces were indices by which
intelligence is measured. Thus, President Obasanjo was right when he
said years ago after appointing some advisers that they shouldn’t expect
all their advice to be accepted, “because,” he said, “we see higher
horizon”. Expectedly, he was criticized for that statement. However,
presidents stand (almost literally) on the shoulders of all the citizens
to see what followers can’t see. That’s why they’re justifiably
surprised when they discover something important happening in their
domain without their knowledge.
In 2011 when Australians heard that
Malaysian prime minister, Najib Abdul Razaq, was coming to their
country, they waited to clobber him. Earlier, Malaysia had refused a
refugee deal proposed by Australia – and Aussies weren’t happy. However,
when Najib got there, he confidently appeared on live TV, took
questions and explained Malaysia’s position. He also wrote an article in
one of the newspapers in Australia to explain the same issues. It’s not
important if he actually wrote the guest column himself, however, it’s
important that he intelligently faced the media pressure and onslaughts;
and eventually the Australians were generally satisfied with his
explanation and thereafter stopped bugging Malaysia on that issue. That
position gives you such chutzpah!
So when our president engages with the
press like the uninformed, uncultured and shadowy internet trolls
reacting tactlessly and with crude ignorance to articles on the online
pages of our newspapers, many questions beg for answers. One of which
is: does earning a Ph.D. make you smart? Dr. Farooq Kperogi in one of
his usually enthralling columns said it doesn’t. “[A] Ph.D. doesn’t
necessarily make people smart;” he said, “it’s just that many smart
people tend to go for a Ph.D”. I disagree. However, Dr. Kperogi was
right. If by “smart” people mean to have more knowledge than others, to
be charming, to be cultured or to (as many Nigerians expect), speak
without any grammatical blemish, then a Ph.D. doesn’t make you smart.
When I was studying for a master’s degree, I told my bicycle repairman
that he was more refined in speech than some of my professors – who
apparently had Ph.D.s.
But a Ph.D. does make you smart. If you
looked at the content and process of earning a Ph.D., you would agree.
First you need to find a school and adviser/supervisor that are right
for you. Then you identify the problem you wish to solve. Then you
convince your committee, supervisor, department or all of them that the
problem is indeed worth solving. If necessary, you would then convince
your peers that you’ve contributed to the body of knowledge by
publishing. In between you need to find the right method to solve the
problem. This is not easy. “I know where to go but I don’t know how to
get there,” a Ph.D. student once cried to me in frustration. You may
need to consult both cantankerous professors and cooperative ones – some
experts would simply ignore you, and you need to find a way to get them
to respond. You could revive old techniques, extend the
state-of-the-art or invent new ones. Finally, you have to present your
work and convince people all over again that you’ve succeeded in pushing
back the frontiers of knowledge. You do this either in writing only, as
is done in Australia, or you present a written thesis and defend it
orally. Finally solving the problem of your research is only one
problem, by the time you’re done, you would have solved 101 problems.
Thus, reasoning, problem-solving. Reasoning, problem-solving. Ad
infinitum.
Therefore, the Ph.D. training teaches
you to think and solve problems. And intelligence is mostly about
thinking and problem-solving: thinking to avoid mistakes, thinking to
fashion products and thinking to resolve difficulties when they occur.
Accordingly, Ph.D. makes you smart.
This reasoning is supported by Cattell
and Horn who identified fluid and crystallized intelligences as factors
of general intelligence. At least Ph.D. should increase one’s
crystallized intelligence since it’s a product of experience and
learning: “Crystallized intelligence is indicated by a person’s depth
and breadth of general knowledge, vocabulary, and the ability to REASON
using words and numbers. It is the product of educational and cultural
experience in interaction with fluid intelligence.”
So, if the enormous resources that the
president commands do not make him more informed or even seemingly
smart, then the Ph.D. he earned should. In the case of our president, it
obviously didn’t.
Amanpour asked three simple questions:
Boko Haram, power and oil theft. After nearly three years as president,
it’s expected that he should have at least stock answers to these
questions. But our president rambled on and on repeating himself
severally. “That is not correct! That is not correct! And I have said it
severally; those are insinuation by some interest group. Definitely
they are insinuation by some interest group.”
“Why is he repeating himself?” I asked my wife. “He’s trying to think,” she said.
If Ph.D. makes one smart, it didn’t make our president smart.
No comments:
Post a Comment