Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.med,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Loss of I.Q.
Message-ID: <499@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 16:31:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.499
Posted: Fri Oct 10 16:31:46 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Oct-86 04:32:59 EDT
References: <253@decvax.UUCP> <698@hropus.UUCP> <599@zeus.UUCP> <753@ihlpf.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 48
Xref: watmath net.med:5139 soc.singles:452
Summary: Define I.Q.?

In article <753@ihlpf.UUCP> zonker@ihlpf.UUCP (Tom Harris) writes:
>In article <698@hropus.UUCP> jin@hropus.UUCP (Jerry Natowitz) writes:
>>
>>> "Dr. Carl Faber, in a lecture on pornography aired over KPFK,
>>> warned listeners that "Your I.Q. drops 40 points when you're
>>> thinking about masturbating."  He didn't say how the research
>>> was done."
>>> 
>>> 	From The Realist, No. 102, September-October 1986
> 
>Gee, I thought I.Q. was supposed to be a constant measure of
>mental ability (granted there is no perfect (or even very good)
>way to measure this, but that is beside the point).
>It doesn't
>change from moment to moment or because your doing something else.
>			Tom H.

In the sense of standardized tests, and the strict meaning,
this is true.  In a looser sense, it is often associated with
certain mental patterns such as attention span, ability to
focus attention, comprehension, "interrupt handling" ability,
awareness of others, and ability to concentrate.

In the broadest sense, I.Q. is a "buzzword" for "learning
ability".  The ability to assimilate facts, and react, discuss,
and draw conclusions from new information.

Ironically, the good doctor is correct.  When thinking about
masturbating, or any other sexual act, you are more "distracted",
less able to assimilate new information.

Your I.Q. might even be higher when you are masturbating, since
you are more likely to be aware of your environment (listening
for someone about to walk in on you).

My guess is that he was slamming the way someone reacts when a
discussion of certain sexual activities occurs.  An irrational,
gut-level filtering and even rejection of information, which
is part of the "learning process", followed by an emotional
response which does not seem to reflect any learning at all
often occurs.

When discussing something like masturbation, those who feel
it's wrong reject all evidence to the contrary, those who
feel that it's good or fun, reject all evidence to the contrary.
This is often true of otherwise intellegent people.

Wanna bet the doctor was quoted totally out of context?