js
Flashlight Enthusiast
Hello everyone,
My brother suggested I read the three recent articles published in the Wall Street Journal by controversial author Charles Murray. He co-wrote the book "The Bell Curve" which argued for the far reaching and dramatic relationship between IQ and societal and economic success. As I understand it, the books essential premise is that the main reason that there is so much disparity in the incomes of Americans is not due so much to a non-level playing field and lack of equal opportunities, but rather to an inherent difference in intelligence. I think the "left" sees this argument as a white-washing of establishment inequality and priviledge, and a rather insulting one at that.
But I haven't read that book, nor any reaction essays or articles about it. I offer it up merely as all the background I have on the author and the book he is most famous (or infamous) for.
What I have read are the following three articles from the WSJ:
Intelligence in the Classroom
What's Wrong With Vocational School?
and
Aztecs vs. Greeks
I think they are all well worth reading and discussing, but especially the last two. The first one is rather unpalatable for me, actually, but I really don't know whether or not it accurately reflects educational reality. Previously I had assumed that the vast majority of people had ample enough raw intelligence to handle anything in the entire High School curriculum if they would just apply themselves to it.
But now this guy is saying quite the opposite. He is saying that those in the lower 50 percent are going to have trouble no matter what, and that those in the lower third are going to do poorly no matter what.
So that's for starters. I wonder if that's true. The evidence, Murray claims, is in The Bell Curve, which I haven't read.
Next, there's the whole question of IQ in the first place. Is there really such a thing? Forget for the moment about whether or not we can accurately test for it. I'm just wondering if there really is an inherent native intelligence that we all end up with, which we pretty much are stuck with, and which may mean that we are unable to truly understand anything beyond the High School level.
And what kind of intelligence? I mean, we've probably all heard about EQ (emotional quotient). Isn't it possible (or even likely) that someone could test poorly on the IQ test, which is mainly about formal operational thinking and language and symbolic, conceptual understanding, and yet be a great musician, or great poet, or brilliant painter or sculptor and so on?
I have very mixed feelings about this: on the one hand I totally agree that the notion of "No Child Left Behind" is more than just naive; that there are some students who are unable or unwilling to learn what most of their peers can. On the other hand, though, I feel more than a little uneasy about tracking children at earlier stages, putting the "smart" ones in one track and the "dumb" ones in another. I feel more than a little uneasy about a mercenary attitude towards the underachievers. I feel this way for the very good reason that it will always be impossible to really discern between those who are underachievers and those who just don't have the mental abilities needed to achieve. Who's going to make that judgement? How will it be made? When will it be made? Or will it just not be made at all, but rather be built into the grading and educating structure itself in some way?
Another thing I do know is that our culture tends to be very conflicted and even hypocritical about intelligence. We don't want to discriminate based on intelligence. We don't want to even admit that some people are less than brilliant. It's not nice. It's not PC.
But why? Well, I submit it's for the simple reason that everyone rates intelligence very, very highly. So highly, in fact, that admiting that there are really smart or really dumb people is tantamount to admiting that some people are worth more than others, that some people are better than others.
That's the way it seems to me!
Yet, intelligence, especially the kind measured by an "IQ" test, really is over rated. Everyone (or most everyone) thinks that to be brilliant, like an Einstein or a Feynman, would make their lives so much better, would make THEM so much better. But it just ain't so. It patently ain't so. Some people with crazy high IQ scores are very, very unhappy and lead miserable, unsung, unglamorous lives. Their minds are lopsided--one part is developed, OVER-developed, at the expense of the others. They are plagued by the demon of critical thought, which never stops, never ceases to deconstruct and analyze and comment and critique. Or they are rejected by society and their peers, who don't understand them. Boltzmann, the founder of statistical mechanics, a whole branch of physics, which joins thermodynamics with solid state physics, --well, he committed suicide because his ideas were belittled and rejected and he was very depressed and unhappy.
It reminds me of those studies done about people who win the lottery. We all think winning the lottery would make our lives so much easier, so much better. But, evidence suggests that while it will definitely make them different, it doesn't guarantee that they will be better. (Personally, though, I'd like to take that challenge! I'd be OK with winning the lottery! LOL!)
Anyway, point is that the gift of high IQ can also be a curse.
But most importantly, even if it's not, the notion that because someone is smarter, that he or she is better, is really perverse.
I mean, we don't think that way about someone who is a really fast runner, or a great baseball player, right? So why do we have such a hangup about intelligence? Some people are smarter than others. It's just a fact of life! And trying to downplay it or cover it over or even "rectify" it, is going to backfire in a big way. Pushing something underground can sometimes make it that much stronger and more insidious and invasive.
And finally, there is a huge and very important difference between intelligence and wisdom. I've known some really clever and intelligent people who were sorely lacking in wisdom, in "common sense". It's even kind of a stereo type, right? The absentminded professor and the like?
Anyway, I'd love to hear what others have to say about these articles and about what I've said. And, this thread will (I hope) go nicely with cy's unskilled and unaware of it thread.
My brother suggested I read the three recent articles published in the Wall Street Journal by controversial author Charles Murray. He co-wrote the book "The Bell Curve" which argued for the far reaching and dramatic relationship between IQ and societal and economic success. As I understand it, the books essential premise is that the main reason that there is so much disparity in the incomes of Americans is not due so much to a non-level playing field and lack of equal opportunities, but rather to an inherent difference in intelligence. I think the "left" sees this argument as a white-washing of establishment inequality and priviledge, and a rather insulting one at that.
But I haven't read that book, nor any reaction essays or articles about it. I offer it up merely as all the background I have on the author and the book he is most famous (or infamous) for.
What I have read are the following three articles from the WSJ:
Intelligence in the Classroom
What's Wrong With Vocational School?
and
Aztecs vs. Greeks
I think they are all well worth reading and discussing, but especially the last two. The first one is rather unpalatable for me, actually, but I really don't know whether or not it accurately reflects educational reality. Previously I had assumed that the vast majority of people had ample enough raw intelligence to handle anything in the entire High School curriculum if they would just apply themselves to it.
But now this guy is saying quite the opposite. He is saying that those in the lower 50 percent are going to have trouble no matter what, and that those in the lower third are going to do poorly no matter what.
So that's for starters. I wonder if that's true. The evidence, Murray claims, is in The Bell Curve, which I haven't read.
Next, there's the whole question of IQ in the first place. Is there really such a thing? Forget for the moment about whether or not we can accurately test for it. I'm just wondering if there really is an inherent native intelligence that we all end up with, which we pretty much are stuck with, and which may mean that we are unable to truly understand anything beyond the High School level.
And what kind of intelligence? I mean, we've probably all heard about EQ (emotional quotient). Isn't it possible (or even likely) that someone could test poorly on the IQ test, which is mainly about formal operational thinking and language and symbolic, conceptual understanding, and yet be a great musician, or great poet, or brilliant painter or sculptor and so on?
I have very mixed feelings about this: on the one hand I totally agree that the notion of "No Child Left Behind" is more than just naive; that there are some students who are unable or unwilling to learn what most of their peers can. On the other hand, though, I feel more than a little uneasy about tracking children at earlier stages, putting the "smart" ones in one track and the "dumb" ones in another. I feel more than a little uneasy about a mercenary attitude towards the underachievers. I feel this way for the very good reason that it will always be impossible to really discern between those who are underachievers and those who just don't have the mental abilities needed to achieve. Who's going to make that judgement? How will it be made? When will it be made? Or will it just not be made at all, but rather be built into the grading and educating structure itself in some way?
Another thing I do know is that our culture tends to be very conflicted and even hypocritical about intelligence. We don't want to discriminate based on intelligence. We don't want to even admit that some people are less than brilliant. It's not nice. It's not PC.
But why? Well, I submit it's for the simple reason that everyone rates intelligence very, very highly. So highly, in fact, that admiting that there are really smart or really dumb people is tantamount to admiting that some people are worth more than others, that some people are better than others.
That's the way it seems to me!
Yet, intelligence, especially the kind measured by an "IQ" test, really is over rated. Everyone (or most everyone) thinks that to be brilliant, like an Einstein or a Feynman, would make their lives so much better, would make THEM so much better. But it just ain't so. It patently ain't so. Some people with crazy high IQ scores are very, very unhappy and lead miserable, unsung, unglamorous lives. Their minds are lopsided--one part is developed, OVER-developed, at the expense of the others. They are plagued by the demon of critical thought, which never stops, never ceases to deconstruct and analyze and comment and critique. Or they are rejected by society and their peers, who don't understand them. Boltzmann, the founder of statistical mechanics, a whole branch of physics, which joins thermodynamics with solid state physics, --well, he committed suicide because his ideas were belittled and rejected and he was very depressed and unhappy.
It reminds me of those studies done about people who win the lottery. We all think winning the lottery would make our lives so much easier, so much better. But, evidence suggests that while it will definitely make them different, it doesn't guarantee that they will be better. (Personally, though, I'd like to take that challenge! I'd be OK with winning the lottery! LOL!)
Anyway, point is that the gift of high IQ can also be a curse.
But most importantly, even if it's not, the notion that because someone is smarter, that he or she is better, is really perverse.
I mean, we don't think that way about someone who is a really fast runner, or a great baseball player, right? So why do we have such a hangup about intelligence? Some people are smarter than others. It's just a fact of life! And trying to downplay it or cover it over or even "rectify" it, is going to backfire in a big way. Pushing something underground can sometimes make it that much stronger and more insidious and invasive.
And finally, there is a huge and very important difference between intelligence and wisdom. I've known some really clever and intelligent people who were sorely lacking in wisdom, in "common sense". It's even kind of a stereo type, right? The absentminded professor and the like?
Anyway, I'd love to hear what others have to say about these articles and about what I've said. And, this thread will (I hope) go nicely with cy's unskilled and unaware of it thread.
