Joadtom is certainly not totally incorrect when he espouses less government (as he thinks the tea party also does). The problem is that this means that individuals (and corporations are now individuals according to the Supreme Court) will need to take up the slack if there is less government. This would mean that younger individuals such as himself would then become responsible for taking care of such as the elderly that can no longer take care of themselves. Does he then think that is actually going to happen with the pure for profit corporations, or even the “me, me, ME!” generation? Sorry, but as one of those elderly that did my bit for the USA and society in general, but never became wealthy while doing so (as did the far greater number of such elderly), I would far rather depend on the government to help me back now than any other entity.
And this is especially true, as I am the major provider for not only my incredibly wonderful wife of some 50+ years, but even for my laid off son-in-law, my daughter, and my two grand children. And I am certainly not alone in this kind of situation today. The tea party types threaten that very survival, and would throw all of we middle class elderly under the bus, so naturally I oppose them!
Can I put in a word for other kinds of smart? Such as musical smart? IQ tests don’t test for that. Or athletic smart? (I just watched the Canadian women win gold in curling — they are so so so good!)
I guess my personal experience influences how I think about all this. When I was in my middle and later teens I got to know a bunch of sort of super-smart kids, at least as indicated by their test scores. Many of them were kind of stuck up about it, and I found it tiresome. (In retrospect I think that many of them were compensating for feelings of loneliness and alienation they had developed in high school.) Then I got to know a bunch of people from the civil rights movement and the peace movement. They weren’t people who scored high on tests, mostly, and some of them had never been in a life situation where testing made much difference to anything, but a number of them were impressively insightful about human relationships, and they had a much better understanding of how power works in the US. Overall I would not want to say that one group was smarter than the other.
You know a lot more than I do about testing, so I will certainly defer to your knowledge. And I don’t doubt that there is something (if it’s a thing) that we can call intelligence. It’s just that I’ve been very impressed by some people who didn’t test all that well and not so impressed by some people who tested very well. I’m not trying to draw a general point on anecdotal evidence; but I would say that individuals shouldn’t be discouraged if they don’t test all that well or too puffed up if they do. First, some abilities aren’t tested by IQ tests (though there could be other tests that do test those abilities.) Second, it’s very possible for a person who doesn’t test well to become successful. IQ isn’t destiny. But I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you overall.
I wasn’t talking about Mensa. When I was in university I knew a group of students who were in a special program for the super-smart; it was an experimental program to see what they could do if they weren’t restricted to the standard curriculum. They took special courses designed just for them — normal students weren’t allowed in. And they all lived together in a special “brain” dorm. My impression is that the program was a disaster. I still keep up with a few of them and I hear news about some others. They were variously successful, depending on how you measure success, but not notably more successful than the people I knew who were not in the program. And as I said, I was much more comfortable when I starting hanging out with the crazy lefties.
Just to continue that last point, after I dropped out of university I was working with a left group that was largely made up of other university drop-outs. We all had figured out that the education we wanted was in the streets, not in the classroom, at that time, anyway. Anyway, I met this guy who was an organizer for some left group, I don’t remember which one. He was black, about 30 years old as I recall, and he’d come up through the projects. His group and my group often cooperated on projects. And I remember that one day he said to me, “You know, you college kids, you got your philology and your philosophy and your biology and your zoology, well, I’ve got my blockology. You take any block in this neighborhood, and I can tell you who talks to who, who sleeps with who, and who wants to kill who. I can tell you where to go to get whatever you want, and if you want to get something done, I can tell you who can do it. And I didn’t never have to go to college to learn that.” He was right. He dropped out of school probably after grade ten, but he was very smart about human relationships. I learned a lot from him.
Can I ask about the ontology of “intelligence”? Is this “intelligence” a thing?When we test intelligence, I suppose (correct me if I’m wrong) that we’re finding out what a person can do. Person A can 90% of the tasks on this test, but person B can do 80%. Do we then say that person A has greater intelligence than person B? What have we added by talking about this thing called “intelligence”? As a folk concept, it has its uses, perhaps, but does it have a use in science? Perhaps if we are talking about anything we are talking about a process — the circulation of the blood is a process, not a thing, though it obviously depends on things. So the test depends on things (brain structures), but maybe the “intelligence” isn’t a thing.
A further question, about correlations. Is it the case that a person who scores well on one part of an IQ test is likely to score well on other parts of the test? Are some correlations stronger than others? Are there other tests, perhaps not recognized as “intelligence” tests, that should also be compared?
You certainly didn’t offend me. I hope I didn’t offend you. When I write a note without directing it to anyone in particular, it’s open to all. Even when I direct a note, I’m happy to read responses by others.
If anyone is still interested in this discussion, I have a further question which I think is related. I’m very interested in what I guess I would call sensitivity to surroundings (though surroundings can be interior). What I have in mind, for example, is the way a great basketball player seems to have the whole court and everyone’s position in mind when he makes a play. (I actually don’t much care about who wins and loses athletic contests, but I can admire the excellence of the play.) Does this kind of extreme sensitivity to where things are and how fast they are moving count as intelligence? If so, why, and if not, why not?
tcolkett about 10 years ago
…and…and…and I think he’s a Muslim too!
frodo1008 about 10 years ago
Joadtom is certainly not totally incorrect when he espouses less government (as he thinks the tea party also does). The problem is that this means that individuals (and corporations are now individuals according to the Supreme Court) will need to take up the slack if there is less government. This would mean that younger individuals such as himself would then become responsible for taking care of such as the elderly that can no longer take care of themselves. Does he then think that is actually going to happen with the pure for profit corporations, or even the “me, me, ME!” generation? Sorry, but as one of those elderly that did my bit for the USA and society in general, but never became wealthy while doing so (as did the far greater number of such elderly), I would far rather depend on the government to help me back now than any other entity.
And this is especially true, as I am the major provider for not only my incredibly wonderful wife of some 50+ years, but even for my laid off son-in-law, my daughter, and my two grand children. And I am certainly not alone in this kind of situation today. The tea party types threaten that very survival, and would throw all of we middle class elderly under the bus, so naturally I oppose them!
OmqR-IV.0 about 10 years ago
Well, to be fair, I did see someone celebrating his IQ, although he admits he was a tad tired at the time. All good students party hard.
lonecat about 10 years ago
Can I put in a word for other kinds of smart? Such as musical smart? IQ tests don’t test for that. Or athletic smart? (I just watched the Canadian women win gold in curling — they are so so so good!)
lonecat about 10 years ago
I guess my personal experience influences how I think about all this. When I was in my middle and later teens I got to know a bunch of sort of super-smart kids, at least as indicated by their test scores. Many of them were kind of stuck up about it, and I found it tiresome. (In retrospect I think that many of them were compensating for feelings of loneliness and alienation they had developed in high school.) Then I got to know a bunch of people from the civil rights movement and the peace movement. They weren’t people who scored high on tests, mostly, and some of them had never been in a life situation where testing made much difference to anything, but a number of them were impressively insightful about human relationships, and they had a much better understanding of how power works in the US. Overall I would not want to say that one group was smarter than the other.
lonecat about 10 years ago
You know a lot more than I do about testing, so I will certainly defer to your knowledge. And I don’t doubt that there is something (if it’s a thing) that we can call intelligence. It’s just that I’ve been very impressed by some people who didn’t test all that well and not so impressed by some people who tested very well. I’m not trying to draw a general point on anecdotal evidence; but I would say that individuals shouldn’t be discouraged if they don’t test all that well or too puffed up if they do. First, some abilities aren’t tested by IQ tests (though there could be other tests that do test those abilities.) Second, it’s very possible for a person who doesn’t test well to become successful. IQ isn’t destiny. But I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you overall.
lonecat about 10 years ago
I’m not quite sure what we are disagreeing about.
lonecat about 10 years ago
I wasn’t talking about Mensa. When I was in university I knew a group of students who were in a special program for the super-smart; it was an experimental program to see what they could do if they weren’t restricted to the standard curriculum. They took special courses designed just for them — normal students weren’t allowed in. And they all lived together in a special “brain” dorm. My impression is that the program was a disaster. I still keep up with a few of them and I hear news about some others. They were variously successful, depending on how you measure success, but not notably more successful than the people I knew who were not in the program. And as I said, I was much more comfortable when I starting hanging out with the crazy lefties.
lonecat about 10 years ago
Just to continue that last point, after I dropped out of university I was working with a left group that was largely made up of other university drop-outs. We all had figured out that the education we wanted was in the streets, not in the classroom, at that time, anyway. Anyway, I met this guy who was an organizer for some left group, I don’t remember which one. He was black, about 30 years old as I recall, and he’d come up through the projects. His group and my group often cooperated on projects. And I remember that one day he said to me, “You know, you college kids, you got your philology and your philosophy and your biology and your zoology, well, I’ve got my blockology. You take any block in this neighborhood, and I can tell you who talks to who, who sleeps with who, and who wants to kill who. I can tell you where to go to get whatever you want, and if you want to get something done, I can tell you who can do it. And I didn’t never have to go to college to learn that.” He was right. He dropped out of school probably after grade ten, but he was very smart about human relationships. I learned a lot from him.
lonecat about 10 years ago
Can I ask about the ontology of “intelligence”? Is this “intelligence” a thing?When we test intelligence, I suppose (correct me if I’m wrong) that we’re finding out what a person can do. Person A can 90% of the tasks on this test, but person B can do 80%. Do we then say that person A has greater intelligence than person B? What have we added by talking about this thing called “intelligence”? As a folk concept, it has its uses, perhaps, but does it have a use in science? Perhaps if we are talking about anything we are talking about a process — the circulation of the blood is a process, not a thing, though it obviously depends on things. So the test depends on things (brain structures), but maybe the “intelligence” isn’t a thing.
lonecat about 10 years ago
A further question, about correlations. Is it the case that a person who scores well on one part of an IQ test is likely to score well on other parts of the test? Are some correlations stronger than others? Are there other tests, perhaps not recognized as “intelligence” tests, that should also be compared?
lonecat about 10 years ago
You certainly didn’t offend me. I hope I didn’t offend you. When I write a note without directing it to anyone in particular, it’s open to all. Even when I direct a note, I’m happy to read responses by others.
lonecat about 10 years ago
If anyone is still interested in this discussion, I have a further question which I think is related. I’m very interested in what I guess I would call sensitivity to surroundings (though surroundings can be interior). What I have in mind, for example, is the way a great basketball player seems to have the whole court and everyone’s position in mind when he makes a play. (I actually don’t much care about who wins and loses athletic contests, but I can admire the excellence of the play.) Does this kind of extreme sensitivity to where things are and how fast they are moving count as intelligence? If so, why, and if not, why not?