Anyone who reads Parade Magazine is familiar with Marilyn Vos Savant, possessor of the world's highest recorded IQ (228.) For the past 20 years, Savant (it's her mom's maiden name) has answered readers' trivia and logic questions. She lives a comfy existence in Manhattan with her husband, Robert Jarvik, the inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart. And? Ask critics. This is what you do with the smartest brain the world?

To others, Savant's relatively modest achievements just go to show that as an indicator of achievement, IQ doesn't mean much. (We're not sure why they care so much — and certainly not sure why one guy spends all his time maintaining a Marilyn is Wrong! website) But has IQ ever really done that? In theory, sure, but can't the knowledge of all that potential be just as great a handicap? I come from a family where there are a bunch of "brilliant" types who have apparently felt it was sufficient to have been born smart and didn't see the need to do much more with themselves. A couple of weeks ago, CBS Sunday Morningran a piece on Mensa's annual convention and the results were kind of sad: far from the organization's original goal of running and improving the world with their combined brainpower, the piece showcased a lot of people hampered by their own sense of superiority, clinging to numbers, and blaming their unhappy social lives on their elevated intelligence. One couldn't help but thinking, watching it, that a lot of them might have been happier if they hadn't had the number looming over them.

The notion that Vos Savant has an obligation to humanity to "do something" with her brilliance is at best bizarre, at worst smacks of eugenics. But the fact that she has a good marriage and social life, friends and career in spite of being "the smartest person in the world" — one hopes that this, at least, can serve as an example to others. "Brilliance" need not be isolating - even if the knowledge of it probably can be.

Is A High IQ A Burden As Much As A Blessing? [FT]
Meeting Of The Minds [CBS]

Although Meghan Tweeted a short response last week, the long form appeared in The Daily Beast today. Meghan, who admits to being teased about her weight as a kid, said:

I expected substantive criticism from conservative pundits for my views, particularly my recent criticism of Ann Coulter. That is the nature of political discourse, and my intent was to generate discussion about the current problems facing the Republican Party. Unfortunately, even though Ingraham is more than 20 years older than I and has been a political pundit for longer, almost, than I have been alive, she responded in a form that was embarrassing to herself and to any woman listening to her radio program who was not a size 0.

In today's society this is, unfortunately, predictable.

I mean, she has a point. If Laura Ingraham is so stymied by the criticism of a 24-year-old newbie writer that she has to resort to mocking her accent and her weight, then that is truly embarrassing for Laura Ingraham's skills as a talking head. Meghan then asks:

Why, after all this time and all the progress feminists have made, is weight still such an issue? And in Laura's case, why in the world would a woman raise it?

Well, that's easy enough: women are not united. The idea that there is some female solidarity in the world is a false one, as everyone from Laura Ingraham to Phyllis Schlafly to Rian at The Skinny are more than happy to demonstrate. It would be great if it were true but the thing about the patriarchy about which I love to caterwaul is that it doesn't just affect men — either in terms of the opportunities it offers them or in terms of the stereotypes it inculcates in women.

Meghan — whose whole point, initially, was that the Republican party needs to do a better job of attracting young people — said on The View:

And what do young women think when I speak my mind about politics and I want to have a political discussion about the ideological future of the Republican Party and the answer is, "She's fat, she shouldn't have an opinion."

Meghan says that the dismissal of her political views because of her supposed weight "infuriates" her, as it does me.

On her radio program earlier today, Ms. Ingraham offered her a thoughtful analysis along with an obligatory mea culpa:

You wanna put yourself out there as someone who's going to redirect the future of the Republican party, and you're going to have to deal with satire. You're gonna have to deal with people teasing. You're gonna have to deal with, you know, sometimes the kitchen gets a little hot! …. You gotta just take a chill pill. … Can I say lighten up or is that offensive too?

I mean, on the one hand, I guess it's good that Ingraham, like Ann Coulter, has just admitted that she's a bad comedian rather than a thoughtful political commentator. Now if only Meghan McCain could take on Rush Limbaugh!

But, seriously, as a fellow non-size 0 girl myself, I'd rather just repeat Meghan's response to Ingraham and the rest of her body critics:

Kiss my fat ass!

The Politics of Size [The Daily Beast]
Meghan McCain Tells Laura Ingraham: ‘Kiss My Fat Ass!' Ingraham Responds That She Should ‘Lighten Up' [ThinkProgress]

Earlier: Body-Snarking, Abortion-Hating, Lieberman-Shunning: The All New Old GOP!
Team Meghan!
Ann Coulter, Bill Maher Bring Circus Act To Manhattan

Trimble, 26, appeared on the British tv quiz show "University Challenge," and consistently blew the other contestants away, Ken Jennings-style, with her ability to answer nearly every question on the board. She led her team, from Corpus Christi College, Oxford, to victory by scoring nearly 2/3 of their points, and has been called "the brainiest woman on British television."

Yet some viewers find Trimble's intelligence annoying, dubbing her "cocky," "smug," and, as India Knight of the Times of London notes: "brain-rupturingly irritating." Her brain isn't the only thing viewers seem to be interested in, as her looks have also gone up for debate: "I'm glad that people are being nice about me rather than nasty," Trimble says, "but... I very much think this would not be happening if I was a man. People would not feel it necessary to comment on my looks so much."

Knight explores the Trimble phenomenon by asking where the other Gail Trimbles of the world have gone; surely they are out there, Knight argues, but society doesn't value them, and so they remain overlooked and underappreciated. The Gail Trimbles of the world are hard to find, Knight argues, "not because they don't exist, but because braininess is no longer considered much of a female virtue or even an asset. So they've been tucked away."

My friends and I often have this discussion: when did it become so cool to be dumb? Perhaps it's just because I'm a big nerd who ran with a crowd of big nerds, but my school experience was much like Knight's: "Everyone I knew felt the same way: the acquisition of knowledge wasn't regarded as naff or nerdy; being clever was seen as cool, and being thick as embarrassing." It wasn't considered a badge of honor to be a complete idiot; being smart, or at least working hard in school, meant that you had a better shot of getting the hell out of my shitkick town, and people respected that.

Knight argues that women are currently going out of their way to hide how smart they are, lest they be judged like Trimble; nobody wants to appear "stuck-up" or "smug," when one can be like, totally awesome and whatever, you know? In a world where Paris bloody Hilton is seen as a role model to teenage girls, the incentive to study hard and be proud of your smarts gets drowned out in a sea of baby-voiced dreams to become the next American Idol. God forbid you open your mouth and be branded an elitist, Smarty McGee!

Trimble, by the by, has been offered numerous makeovers and even a photoshoot with a magazine called Nuts (classy!) which, I believe, is a Maxim-esque magazine that would surely feature her in the standard sexy librarian pose with a headline like "Brains and Booty!" or some stupid crap like that. Trimble has turned such offers down, preferring to concentrate on her studies and continue living her life as awesome smart kickass Gail Trimble, no makeover required.

The "makeover" offers are an insult as well: this incredibly intelligent woman is being asked to sex herself up a bit, to make herself more palatable to the general public. Her brains, clearly, aren't good enough: a message that is being sent to young girls, who, like Knight suggests, will continue to find ways to hide their intelligence in order to appear more "fun" and "sexy", as the media seems to believe that women can't and don't have both.

So how do we fix this issue? How can we teach young girls to stop hiding their smarts and be proud of their intelligence? For the world has millions of Gail Trimbles out there; we just need them to stand up and be seen.

University Challenge: Gail Trimble Leads Corpus Christi College To Victory [Times of London]
Why Don't We Like Clever Women Anymore? [Times of London]

Furnham doesn't think self-esteem training is the cure. He's more into positive feedback and whatnot. But, he warns, "Beliefs may be more important than actual ability in certain settings." Meaning that a dude who thinks he's a genius may get a job instead of a women who's supersmart but doesn't think she is. How did we get here? Why is this a global phenomenon? Each and every one of us probably has a story about our incredibly intelligent mother, grandmother or daughter... But how frightening is it that we're in the minority?

He's Not as Smart As He Thinks [Newsweek]