To label Pinker a hypocrite for using the "standard English" in his writings presents itself as an unfair accusation. Although the fact that "intelligence does not correlate with language" seems to contradict itself in any way, shape or form, different perspectives always lead to differentiating opinions. To clearly label Pinker as a hypocrite of his own works, one would have to know his past. One would have to know where he spent his childhood, how his parents raised him, and who taught him the native language that he speaks today? Pinker says that "...children learn to talk from role models and caregivers." He also writes "[l]anguage is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction....", depicting the idea that language comes naturally and instinctively to every person. (Pinker, pg.18)Therefore, language always presents itself as an "instinct" so that children learn to feed the want to know and communicate with the people who surround them.(Pinker,18) This leads to the fact that intelligence does not comply with language. To further this statement, in the definition of intelligence, it clearly states that intelligence consists of the "capacity for learning."(Dictionary.com) The "capacity for learning" solely involves a childs capability to concieve and retain knowledge, leading further away from the fact that intelligence correlates with language. All of this information in turn goes to show that only can one judge Pinker to be hypocritical, if they know his formal surroundings. As far as readers know, Pinker's parents taught him his native lanquage. Did they speak in the specific form of correct "standard English"? Could the ways of "standard English" abide as the only form of English he has ever known? The knowing of standard English and the use of it lies not as a higher point of intelligence. However, Pinker's readers can only assume one thing about his writings. He clearly writes to attract specific audiences with a higher scholarly tone than one normally speaks, but he distinctly appeals to the higher levels of knowlege who continue to use the art of"standard English." Still the argument stands....Does Pinker's use of "standard English" discredit his argument, or do most people have the wrong definition of true intelligence?