You may and he may find this interesting..
" I had read about William Sidis a long time ago. Supposedly, his father was obsessed with the
idea of making his son a super-genius. As a child, instead of learning about fairy tales, Sidis learned
of Latin and mathematics.
I heard that at the age of fourteen, I believe, he was lecturing on the fourth dimension in front of
many educated individuals. This was when his bizarre malady surfaced. He was supposed to have
had an uncontrollable fit of laughter. I also heard that thereafter, when attempting to lecture, or
undertake some other type of intellectual endeavor, he would suffer from these laughter fits. It was
said that he died at a young age. He had been supporting himself as a janitor, or something of this
sort. I read about William Sidis a long time ago, in the book called Stranger Than Science.
His was quite a tragic story. Such an incredibly brilliant mind, gone to waste. I too, believe it is
important to let your children enjoy their childhood.
JCC: Yes, Andrea, I recall a brief article about his troubled life, some years ago, if it was in fact
the same story. I fear that variations on the theme exist in significant numbers ... and it's not at all
certain that matters have improved over time. It seems wise to allow learning to be a delight rather
than a forced issue. At least allow the delight of learning until such time as tedium and/or inept
teachers spoil things rather much. I was most fortunate to have enjoyed two highly gifted teachers in
succession in the closing years of primary school ... and a few inspiring ones in subsequent years.
It seems also better to know some of the unpleasant realities of humankind at an early age rather
than be taught myth, propaganda, and fantasy under the guise of fact, much in keeping with the noble
words of Hypatia***.
A bright child, as any child, can benefit from the loving, wise parent who provides reliable "survival
facts" and guidance in nurturing the skills of critical thinking which will serve so well in steering a
happier course through life's journey.
LDL: Something deep within told me that I didn't have enough of what it takes to be great at any
one thing and still be good at everything else. Although there are some I've met who seem to do
precisely that.
JPr: I am great at precisely one thing, and maybe a little good at some others. I have focused all
my energies on education of deaf, blind and deafblind kids. To me, nothing else matters. I often
wonder if I could have been a good engineer or architect -- I think not. I could probably have been
a good physician, but I chose this route instead. I can't make a fortune at it, but I am known all over
the world in my tiny little fishbowl {grin} -- for what it's worth. There is so much else I don't know --
but I do know how these three groups of kids learn best and how we can help them move on to their
maximum potential. I guess that makes me one of the folks in your second sentence?
LDL: For my own taste, though, I thought a specialty would be boring, so I chose to dabble in
everything. I've never regretted it and I think I don't flatter myself too much when I say that I
generally am reasonably good at everything I do.
JPr: I like having one specialty, and I don't mind that I am not good at all at other things. I am
fascinated, though, by folks like you who can do so many things.
LDL: Starting with our genetic potentials, we build ourselves in whatever way we react to our
environment and our own internalized actualization. Consequently there are many people I have met
who can not get qualifying scores on the power tests or the standardized tests, who are in our peer
group.
JPr: Yup. That's why I don't get excited about the scores, either. If there was a Mega test focused
on deafblindness, I would score in the 99.9999 percentile {g}. In fact, on the NTE special education
section, I did score about that high. Didn't get me into Mensa, though. Oh, well!
LDL: It is possible that beyond a certain minimum intelligence level is not what defines human any
more than a specific physical form.
JPr: There are humans who have very minimum intelligence levels and are still human... and there
are animals with fairly developed problem-solving skills. I wonder if this is less about being human
or human-like than it is about being a thinking organism, with the potential for problem-solving and
logical thinking. Just a thought...
I am not familiar with the Turing test.
JCC: Essentially the model of Alan Turing on computer intelligence, when in a blind interaction,
the human examiner cannot determine whether the conversation partner at the other end is another
human or a machine simulation of an intelligent being.
Turing himself is such an interesting figure, one who made significant accomplishments for his country
only to be hounded to death through military homophobia a few decades back.
EM: Dear friends, I, for one, am not surprised by talking gorillas, the AOL Political Chat Group
attracts quite a few of them every evening. On another topic, that of extreme intelligence, what good
is it? To pose the question in another manner, why should anyone want to have the highest (largest)
amount of a quality that is far from universally, even generally, admired?
When I was still new in Mensa, some long years ago, I became very concerned about how the
American public seemed to view this organization of which I had just become a member. Baltimore
had at that time a radio talk show host named Allen Christian (Julia will remember him) who was
very popular for several years. On one of his programs, he was interviewing two teenage girls who
had just won Merit Scholarships of some sort, and they were representative of the National Honor
Society. They had exceeded hundreds, if not thousands of other contestants, and were certainly
qualifiers for the i.q. societies.
After a few minutes of discussion, Allen asked them if they had considered membership in Mensa,
along with their other demonstrated academic accomplishments. They seemed genuinely shocked,
aghast would not be incorrect, at the suggestion. They instantly responded that the idea was
outlandish, they had never considered it, and certainly they never would. As a radio listener, and
newly hatched member of Mensa, I was equally shocked at the vehemence of their response, and
attitude. Allen did not regard their response as unusual, and he smoothly went on to other subjects in
the interview. I must admit I was a bit annoyed, but extremely curious about the matter as well. The
girls were clearly pleased and charmingly modest about their academic or intellectual prowess as
revealed in academic accomplishment. Why then, were they hostile to the idea of a group such as
Mensa?
Oh, dear, now the discussion strays into a morass of quicksand decorated with snakes and
alligators. The first idea is that of the great American anti-intellectual attitude, the frontiersman with
his musket, a strong, stalwart semi-literate, quick to dispatch b'ars, Indians, and heretics. The second
is the idea of fairness, you work hard, run a 4.0 average, and get the good job offers from Salomon
Brothers upon graduation, and make $350,000 a year at the age of 27. The third idea is an ingrained
resentment of perceived hereditary advantage. If a high school dropout can qualify for Mensa, what
good is it? If a person with a master's degree in English cannot qualify, how fair is it?
The American public demands a license, or permit to have, or demonstrate, intelligence. A
doctorate, or other honorific title, will permit the bearer to use academic speech patterns without
public resentment. The person without such credentialing is at risk of arousing envy and resentment
of his/her peers, and must adopt protective coloring in the form speech patterns, and expressed
ideas, appropriate to his/her social group and placement.
I once discussed Mensa briefly with a psychiatrist who was a member of the American Psychiatric
Association. He gave the opinion that Mensa was a bad idea, far too elitist. I inquired if the
American Psychiatric Association might be just the slightest bit elitist? He was indignant, and assured
me that such could not possibly be the case, the very idea was ridiculous.
** David Slater's article is linked here, and also on the main page.
*** Hypatia of Alexandria (c. 370 - 415 CE): "Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths,
and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind
accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after years
relieved of them. In fact, men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth --- often
more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of
view, and so is changeable."
Osen, Lynn M., Women in Mathematics, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1974., citing p.84 of Elbert
Hubbard's 1908 biographical work on Hypatia. |
