Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!clong From: clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) Newsgroups: sci.psychology Subject: Re: Hi-Q societies Message-ID: Date: 26 Mar 88 23:17:54 GMT References: <7743@apple.Apple.Com> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 83 In an earlier article, Grady Ward wrote: > ... increased my G.R.E. scores over 250 points to 790 V and 760 Q. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Almost as good as mine! :<) > Elitist usually is usually taken to be "the choice part or segment, esp. > a socially superior group." Hmm..., maybe I shouldn't have used the word elitist, the word leaves a bad taste in my mouth (the word is usually used the decry the special treatment given to more gifted/motivated people, which I think needs to be done). You are not what I consider to be elitist; misrepresentative is a better word. All I wish is that you would say "society for people who do well on certain exams" as opposed to "society for extremely gifted people". The two are obviously not synonymous. > 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? No, they are sane. It is not sane to require an extremely gifted person to pass an exam before before he can join. > People of exceptionally high intelligence (you know who you are!) are > qualitatively different (but not "better") from the ordinary person. Depending on what you mean by intelligence, the answer could be: (1) yes, they are better : tautology; (2) or no, they aren't : IQ tests don't measure anything beyond test ability. The first is what people think of when they say "boy, is he/she smart", this is obviously a "great" feature, making a person "better." However, in the second, the only thing "better" about the person would be his/her testing ability, an "okay" but maybe not "great" feature. > 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. :-) Hmmm..., the fallacy of the misattributed quote. Wasn't me who said that (but gee, you know, all you mathematicians look alike :-) ) Of course, we're better then all you plebes, anyway. :-) :-) Einstein had his own special problems; he absolutely refused to give up his deterministic views, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Some quick comments: I apologize slightly for the tone of my first posting; this subject tends to get me hot under the collar. I would love to discuss the problems that intelligent/gifted/talented people have in a constructive manner. Some of my keenest interests lie in: how do we educate such people? What can we do for them? What is the meaning of IQ/GRE/SAT/etc. test scores? This may sound horrible, but it's an obvious truth: smarter IS better; it's just rude to say it. However, higher IQ !==> smarter. -- Chris Long Rutgers University RPO 1878 CN 5063 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)-932-1160 clong@topaz.rutgers.edu -- Chris Long Rutgers University RPO 1878 CN 5063 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)-932-1160 clong@topaz.rutgers.edu