Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!claris!apple!grady
From: grady@Apple.COM (Grady Ward)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: High I.Q., etc.
Message-ID: <7874@apple.Apple.Com>
Date: 8 Apr 88 17:49:09 GMT
References: <7599@ihlpa.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: grady@apple.UUCP (Grady Ward)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 38


     I am disappointed that Mr. Schacter chooses to boycott this 
news group rather than make further contributions in order to make it 
better.  Although he cites the "hi-Q club" debate as one of the silly 
muddlings which has tormented him, he neglects to give specific 
examples of malignant ignorance so that propagators of such drivel, 
such as myself, can potentially correct our error.
     It seems to me to be supremely ironic that, while Mr. Schacter 
removes the collimator from his flamer by his simple parody of hi-Q 
clubs' entrance requirements ("Densa"), he does not see that one of 
the biggest reasons for having entrance requirements, just as for 
moderated newsgroups, is to pre-empt the protected discussion from 
this kind of meta-criticism.  In other words, it seems that Mr. 
Schacter is more comfortable in freely flaming people, apparently 
more sensitive than himself, that he is in permitting unmolested 
association of those people through a set of entrance filters.
     As we enter the nineties, it appears that the most fundamental 
problem that mathematicians and scientists, including psychological 
scientists, will have to overcome is the problem of  incorporating 
uncertainty into their theories while not regressing into superstition or 
personality cults -- just as Physics had to in dealing with quantum 
mechanics in the 20's.  The naive realism of "proof" and "scientific 
method" are insufficiently powerful to deal with, for example, 
problems of Bayesian versus standard statistics or of the nature of 
human intelligence and its relationship to democratic principles.  
Similarly, dismissing non-experimental psychology as a priori 
worthless or insignificant appears to be simply parochial and as 
laughable as Aristotelian science became during the late middle ages.
     I hope Mr. Schacter continues to explore, contribute, and to 
criticize when warranted, but I think we all should expect that that 
criticism, just like the other axes of theory-building, requires a 
reasonably explicit description of one's standards and assumptions 
before taking it too seriously.  Parody is a cheap shot because it's too 
easy to do.
     For a free copy of the Cincinnatus Society Journal, which 
offers extremely gifted people a pleasant conversation among people 
with like opportunities and concerns, write to 380 N. Bayview Ave., 
Sunnyvale, CA  94086.  Or e-mail grady@apple.