Maurice, re: "One can play with words and define words to mean what you want them to mean. But there are intelligence researchers who in fact can measure intelligence, and it's not some capricious unquantifiable attribute. It's quantifiable, like height and weight.
It takes a great deal of intelligence to define intelligence, much less quantify it. The potential combinations of abilities that make up "intelligence" are numerous. It's not only conceivable but probably likely that there have been people who could do quantum physics and yet not drive an auto without getting into a series of wrecks. Too stupid to drive safely but smart enough to do quantum physics? Is that intelligent? "No" and "yes." With so many aspects of intelligence to consider, how do you quantify it?
And then how do you deal with the issue of speed of thinking as opposed to clarity of thinking? I attended a pretty good law school that had some tough admission standards. One of the top three THINKERS in the school was a guy who often came up with some surprisingly complex reasoning...the next day. His ability to think through layers of complex issues was amazing but he couldn't play cards with us because it took him too long to decide which card to play.
He thought he wasn't bright because he was slow. One day he told me he was going into a field of law that didn't require a lot of talent. I asked him why and he said; "I don't have the horsepower to compete with guys like you." As smart as he was, I had to explain to him that fast wasn't the same thing as brilliant.
He was a modest, introspective person and I think it was the first time he'd ever considered that possibility. Throughout his entire student life he'd fallen short of achieving really high test scores on IQ and other ability tests because they were all timed; timed, but not timed for his slower thinking speed.
One of the questions on the most commonly used verbal IQ tests used to ask something like; "if it takes two men 1 hour to complete the task, how long will it take for 4 men to complete the task." One of the answers was 1/2 hour and one of the answers was "cannot tell from the information given." I chose the "cannot tell" answer and later discovered that answer was...wrong. I always wondered if they were repairing a watch or moving a 500 pound refrigerator but no one said.
Another question had a picture of a snowy scene and they asked what didn't fit in the picture. In the picture they showed there was a tier of firewood that had no snow on the top of the logs. The logs were dark and the pile was heavy. I've SEEN snow melt off dark, heavy masses first because of the amount of heat dark colors will absorb and that heavy masses will store. That, however, was the "wrong" answer. g. How intelligent were the people who attempted to quantify intelligence using those tests?
No sour grapes; I scored highly but I wasn't impressed with the process.
I think most tests that purport to measure intelligence do a good job of measuring how well you can learn. How well you can think, however, is a much more important question and one that is much more difficult to measure. I went to school with a lot of amazingly good learners who couldn't think for shit. I still see them. Many of them are addressed as "Doctor." Too bad. I think C. Rice is a fine example of that kind of "intelligence."
And yes, in terms of aptitudes, with respect to gender or racial differences it's silly to think that on average "we're all the same." It's even more silly, however, to pigeonhole individual people based on gender or race. Each of us is what he or she is, have the abilities we have and only time and experience will sort us out. We don't need to feel constrained by some statistical probability that may or may not be reflective of the unique abilities that each of us may possess. Ed |
