Quote:
Originally Posted by Eta C
This whole discussion is rendererd meaningless by the underlying assumption that there is something called "intelligence" that can be quantified by some measure (brain size, brain weight, IQ test score, etc.). This is what Steven J Gould referred to as the fallacy of reification in his classic book The Mismeasure of Man.
|
Well said, Eta C. I used to hate reading Parade (a section found in many newspapers in the 1980s) because I'd always read Ask Marylin's column. Supposedly, she was some sort of super-genious, yet I kept spotting egotistical and flippant mistakes in her answers.
I wrote to the editor several times, pointing out her numerous mistakes, including corrections, and in the 90's I'd e-mail them.
I never got a response. And do you know why?
Because her column helped sell newspapers. They would never respond in any manner that might compromise their bottom line, probably out of fear that it might be printed in a competitive column.
For all I know, she may have had a 160, or even a 185 IQ, but simply ignorant of most things, or thinking she knew more in an area than she did because of her IQ but without enough knowledge in that area to detect, much less correct, her many mistakes.
My IQ is definately lower than hers, even in the highest I've ever scored, yet I could both spot, and verify through research that she was making mistakes and printing them. Evidently the editors had far less experience than she did, as her mistakes slipped right through their fingers and into print.
The point is that Eta C is right. Aptitude and experience, in the long run, far outweight IQ when it comes to anyone's contributions to society.
And while we're on the subject of contributions to society, let's talk a bit about evolutionary pressures.
A woman who has nine kids isn't any more likely to continue her gene pool than a woman who has two kids, if the two-child women's kids eat better, get better personal attention, and grow up to be more successful than the nine-child woman.
Some environmental conditions (plentiful food supply, opportunities for migration) favor many-child families. Basically, primative societies. Other environmental conditions (high food prices, steep learning curves for long-term success) favor having fewer children. Basically, more modern societies.
Amazingly enough, this is precisely what's happening throughout the world. As a society modernizes, the number of children per couple drop, sometimes by edict (China), and others voluntarily (USA). However, statistics being what it is, the correlations aren't very time-dependant. That is, it could also be said that as the number of children per couple drop, the society is able to become more modern.
The old chicken and the egg issue, although I concede that since I first looked at this issue about a decade ago much might have changed.
I knew a guy who now works for NASA. I knew him because I went through grade school. Dumbest kid on the block. Low grades. Scored near the bottom of his class on scholastic aptitude tests. Had to repeat a grade in elementary school, and again in middle school.
But he was my best friend in 7th, 8th, and 9th grades, while I was the one people in my science class had nicknamed "Brain" because I always aced the tests.
Why were we friends?
First, he was friendly! That's an
aptitude, perhaps a learned one, as his parents were friendly, too. Second, he was highly adept at physical sports (
innate ability), and so was I, which meant that whenever the neighborhood kids gathered for basketball, football, or kick the can, we were there. I could run faster than he could, though he was slightly taller, 2 years older, and more lanky. But he could best me at basketball (though not my much, as a center has to be shorter and quicker than the forward positions that he was playing).
Third, he stuck up for me, and I did the same for him. Fourth, few wanted to spend time with me because I was seen as too brainy (scored second out of several hundred 7th graders on a scholastic aptitudes test) and because few (though more he than with me) wanted to spend time with him because he was seen as "stupid."
He wasn't stupid.
He had insights into people that most people 32 years later still don't have into themselves, and I recall many a lunch hour spent talking about one person or another.
In those lunch-hour sections, I didn't educate him. He educated me. Our supposed IQs (as near as I can determine) were separated by nearly 50 points.
But he educated me.
He just wasn't what we call "booksmart." I tutored him in RWaA (reading, writing, and arithmetic). He could play the drums like Neil Pert, though, and did so in a band at church (well, ok, at home, not in church, where he was restricted from doing so). He taught me to play drums, and got me interested in percussion.
We'd pick blackberries by the creek.
We were friends.
Perhaps the most unlikely of friends, but given each of our unique aptitudes and learned abilities, neither of which had
ANYthing to do with IQ, we became friends.
We even shared the same paper route for a while, taking over from two others who'd quit, and splitting the duties and proceeds.
Believe it or not, this fine gent has been working for NASA for the last 15 years.
Why? It's not because of his IQ. It's because of his aptitudes, which someone with a bit of genious (not the IQ kind, but the Human Relations (HR) kind) recognized, and capitalized on. He performs an honest day's work at a good salary and goes home to support his wife and three kids.
I'd like to say a few not so kind words about IQ tests at this moment. They tell so little of the side of a story of anyone's life it's not even funny. In fact, it's a travesty.
However, I'm prevented by the forum rules from doing so.
What I'd like to know is why said tests ever became a predominant theme on our landscape when dozens of other studies showed that IQ alone amounts to next to nothing, compared with aptitude and experience?
Yours truly,
- Mugs