Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!claris!apple!grady From: grady@Apple.COM (Grady Ward) Newsgroups: sci.psychology Subject: Re: Society for extremely gifted people? Message-ID: <7692@apple.Apple.Com> Date: 15 Mar 88 20:57:44 GMT References: <7550@apple.Apple.Com> Reply-To: grady@apple.UUCP (Grady Ward) Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA Lines: 79 Mr. Long of Rutgers University brings up a couple of good points about high-I.Q. clubs and their entrance requirements that deserve a response. >The GRE and SAT exams are NOT intelligence tests. I agree. Further, I believe that even the express "Intelligence Tests," such as the Weschler or Stanford-Binet, are not. Quantification in Psychology is a early 20th century fad; many of us believe, however, that there is a positive correlation with general aptitude test scores and future eminence, which is, ultimately, a better measure of intelligence (though equally racist and sexist!) And that correlation is comparatively high than for other more subjective measures we might use, such as how good one's jokes are. >The GRE and SAT exams are extremely [coachable], and I feel that any reasonably competent person who wants to could achieve the scores you require for admission. I couldn't agree more. After using a custom-designed computer program which, I hoped, strengthened skills needed for several I.Q. subtests, I increased my G.R.E. scores over 250 points to 790 V and 760 Q. There seems to be some positive transference, too, since my (uncoached) Miller's Analogies Score was 97. However, I'm not sure why you think this a good argument to eliminate the crypto-intelligence tests from our consideration. We have never claimed that intelligence, whatever it is, is innate or determined. Good nutrition, exercise, a good night's sleep, even a cup of coffee--all increase intelligence, at least temporarily. Studying for the SAT probably does too. >Not elitist? Give me a break! If you don't want to be elitist, don't have any entrance requirements. Elitist usually is usually taken to be "the choice part or segment, esp. a socially superior group." We have never claimed we are socially superior to anyone--in fact, many of us are distinctly socially inferior, with marginal jobs (the "genius strategy") and, often, the distinction of being the pariah or troublemaker in the community. Nor does an entrance requirement imply elitism: is Gallaudet College elitist if matriculation there requires deafness? Is a diving club elitist if it requires that you swim? We discriminate against random people for the same reason that Classic Comics are not my preferred reading: even though there are good things to be learned from Classic Comics, the core is rather more attenuated compared to, say, reading the literature itself. Similarly, in a mathematics conference, I presume you would be selected over me, who is very ignorant about mathematics, to present a paper. It's not that what I know about math is completely wrong, it's just that my truths/minute compared to you would undoubtedly be very low and thus more of a waste of time to the other participants in the conference. Is your mathematics conference selection therefore elitist? Of course not. People of exceptionally high intelligence (you know who you are!) are qualitatively different (but not "better") from the ordinary person. The Cincinnatus Society lets you publish your stuff and talk with others at full bandwidth, for a change. Please send inquiries and your request for a free copy of the Journal (non-members of the Cincinnatus Society can subscribe and submit articles for publication send $20.- [$25.- outside North America]) to: The Cincinnatus Society 380 N. Bayview Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" is an excellent introduction to some of the most egregious applications of I.Q. pseudoscience. Binet, Thurstone, Guilford, and Weschler all have written works on the quantification of intelligence. A brilliant early work on intelligence and its relationship to the Gaussian distribution will be found in: Francis Galton's "Hereditary Genius" --Grady Ward Now, if I may indulge myself with several of the logical fallacies that you used in your letter attacking hi-I.Q. clubs: I am completely shocked and grossed out that no one hasn't responded to your first message--the idea that mathematicians are better than everyone else is condescending and absurd--even Einstein didn't feel this way. On the other hand, I'm sure you are well-meaning and deserve all of our pity for your be- nighted view. :-)