Re: White men more qualified

"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4a3691c2$0$31280$607ed4bc@xxxxxxxxx
Evelyn wrote:

"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4a3660ca$0$31269$607ed4bc@xxxxxxxxx

Evelyn wrote:

"El Castor" <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:irrb3555blkn8g09pqtrnl9bchp2nvnovb@xxxxxxxxxx


The problem of course, from the liberal perspective, with
acknowledging that one group might be more intelligent than another is
that if you fall into that trap, then you are forced to also
acknowledge that one group might be less intelligent than another.




That may be. But there are different kinds of intelligence too. Who is to say that one kind is better than another? Would you rather be Einstein or Luciano Pavarotti (or name any greatly talented or intelligent person)? It depends on what you personally value. I think the world is big enough to contain everybody, and getting along with them should be our first priority. Build bridges, not moats.

Sorry, Evelyn, but again you are wrong. There are NOT different kinds of intelligences. The concept of 'Multiple Intelligence, as espoused by a few individuals has been thoroughly debunked by legitimate scientists. and for good reason. These other 'intelligences' have never been successfully defined, and have never been measured because there has never been created a tool for measuring them. Consequently, one accepts the theory on the basis of belief only, and not on the basis of any evidence. At this juncture, the best definition we have is that intelligence can be expressed in different manners, but we have only one reasonable tool for measuring intelligence, as we know it today.

You, yourself allude to this when you suggest that how you express your intelligence depends on your personality value( although your choice of Pavarotti should be excluded, as his success stems more from a physical trait than from intellectual factors ).

And while I agree that it might be better to build bridges than moats, you get no points for ignoring real differences for the sake of some altruistic egalitarianism.




You can criticize all you like, but I still think there are different kinds of sensitivity, intelligence, talent, whatever you want to call it. Mozart was a mess in his personal life, but nobody has matched the guy yet, in his particular area of expertise. It depends on how you define what you value and aspire to. I call it a kind of intelligence. Physical prowess and skill should not be ruled out either. These are things that make one person stand out above another. You can be a mathematical or financial genius but if your personal life is a ruin, and your loved ones hate you, you have some screw loose somewhere. Intelligence is far more than just an IQ score. I will grant you that some are rather obviously outstanding and others are outstandingly handicapped in many areas of human endeavor. This is a complicated subject and an unwinnable argument unless we should first agree on exactly which area we are quibbling about.

Evelyn, I don't criticize. I simply tell you what the evidence reveals in accordance with accepted scientific standards. Multiple Intelligences fails as a theory because it has never been defined and because of that, there is no tool to measure it. And for good reason; because it doesn't exist. if it did exist, it could be defined and we would have some sort of tool for measuring how much each person had, and we could predict how much of each intelligence certain individuals would have. Such is not the case, hence, there is no evidence to support the conjecture. This is exactly the same set of circumstances that surrounded the now-debunked phlogiston theory, which held that there was some mythical, magical substance called phlogiston that somehow was destroyed in burning, accounting for the loss of mass. Everyone knew that must be the case, because of observations. The only trouble was that nobody could ever isolate this substance, and measure it. And for good reason; because, like multiple intelligence, it doesn't exist.

The examples you cite are accurate, but have no bearing as to what intelligence really is. What is know as personal organizational skills and social interactions go more towards things which relate to interactions of individuals within a society, and have little relationship to cognitive skills that are what is commonly considered to be intelligence. IOW, you can have a very nice, but stupid person, just as you can have a highly intelligent, but socially unsophisticated individual, which we commonly call 'nerds.'

Physical prowess and skills can certainly be ruled out, because they have nothing to do with cognitive skills, but are based on an entirely different set of characteristics and genetics. so, indeed, when talking about intelligence, they are properly ruled out.

At present, how one applies one's intelligence has to do with a host of social and environmental factors, while intelligence is a genetically determined component, as Jeff has already told you. Liberals tend not to like that, because it detracts from their egalitarian notions, but unfortunately all people are NOT created equal.

And the standards has already been set for this argument by science, which has based its theories on evidence, for which none exists for multiple intelligences. In order to be a valid theory, there must be measurable evidence supporting it, and it must have predictive value. The concept of multiple intelligences, of late in vogue among befuddled educators, does not qualify as such.

Sorry, Evelyn, but you're wrong. Now, I won't quibble that a person is more than just his IQ( intelligence), but as far as intelligence is concerned, what you want to believe as intelligence just ain't so.

Hi Alan,

You have, as always, made an excellent argument, but we are talking about apples and oranges here, not at all the same thing. What you are calling intelligence, would be more cognitive facility and measurable IQ, whereas I am including a wider range of desirable human traits and abilities, such as musical ability, art, dance, talent in writing poetry etc., and I am even including those whose best skills are athletic, as in sports.

You are correct in that this may help to satisfy our egalitarian sensibilities, but it is also true that life would be dull, tasteless and boring as hell without these special human abilities. Having heard Luciano Pavarotti, Itzhak Perelman or even Hank Williams (the first one), and having seen truly great art, and seen some incredibly great athlete like Lance Armstrong, I care very little whether they knew how to solve some mathematical problem or could pass certain tests with a good score. They inspire. They make us feel good. That counts for plenty in this life. It has real practical value in life, and numbers don't count where that is concerned.

I will freely admit that I am playing loose with the definition of the word "intelligence" here, but I also think it is important to get out of the narrow confines of sticking to the strictest use of the word, especially when speaking of beings as complex as we humans are.

Alan, have you ever seen the movie "Forrest Gump?"
(chuckling out loud over here)

--

Evelyn

"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: White men more qualified
    ... Sorry, Evelyn, but again you are wrong. ... These other 'intelligences' have never been successfully defined, and have never been measured because there has never been created a tool for measuring them. ... Consequently, one accepts the theory on the basis of belief only, and not on the basis of any evidence. ... What is know as personal organizational skills and social interactions go more towards things which relate to interactions of individuals within a society, and have little relationship to cognitive skills that are what is commonly considered to be intelligence. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Doctors Only Please
    ... Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD ... > Whatever that garbled sentence about attacking my skills means, ... >> are full of people from all walks of life. ... > I don't cook much anymore except at home. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: Doctors Only Please
    ... Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD ... > Whatever that garbled sentence about attacking my skills means, ... >> are full of people from all walks of life. ... > I don't cook much anymore except at home. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Graduate/Junior FPGA Designer concerns
    ... People looking for making a life long job decision based on a single ... ability to work in your field for the next 60 years. ... time work in school, and your choices for part and full time work ... a broad range of skills necessary to see the product from conception ...
    (comp.arch.fpga)
  • Re: A True Tale of Self Defense
    ... as more important than the perhaps delicate sensibilities of others. ... my method is distinctly extreme and weights saving one's life ... PS My drill is based on the high likelihood that the adversaries one has ... even if armed, has no real firearm skills and, although a nasty ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
Loading