clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (03/27/88)
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
eliot@mind.UUCP (Eliot Handelman) (03/28/88)
In article <Mar.26.18.17.50.1988.21675@topaz.rutgers.edu> clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes: >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? Try to make us buckle under the weight of resentment. We tend to arrive at unpredictable conclusions about the nature of freedom.
clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (03/29/88)
In article <2038@mind.UUCP>, Eliot Handelman cryptically writes: > In article <Mar.26.18.17.50.1988.21675@topaz.rutgers.edu>, Chris Long writes: > > >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? > Try to make us buckle under the weight of resentment. We tend to arrive at > unpredictable conclusions about the nature of freedom. What does this mean? Are you trying to say that people aren't different, and that special treatment (accelerated classes, etc.) given to the (let's use the word "motivated" from now on, as the word "gifted" implies that all normal children are not born with roughly the same mental capabilities, a touchy subject) motivated is not right? Or is this some vague allusion to the freedom/equality problem? -- Chris Long Rutgers University RPO 1878 CN 5063 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)-932-1160 clong@topaz.rutgers.edu
eliot@mind.UUCP (Eliot Handelman) (03/29/88)
In article <Mar.28.13.45.55.1988.4043@topaz.rutgers.edu-> clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes: ->In article <2038@mind.UUCP>, Eliot Handelman cryptically writes: ->>In article <Mar.26.18.17.50.1988.21675@topaz.rutgers.edu>, Chris Long writes: ->>>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? ->>Try to make us buckle under the weight of resentment. We tend to arrive at ->>unpredictable conclusions about the nature of freedom. ->What does this mean? Are you trying to say that people aren't ->different, and that special treatment (accelerated classes, etc.) ->given to the (let's use the word "motivated" from now on, as the word ->"gifted" implies that all normal children are not born with roughly ->the same mental capabilities, a touchy subject) motivated is not ->right? Or is this some vague allusion to the freedom/equality problem? When a thing becomes aware of its limitations, intellectual or whatever, this thing, a man, say, may motivate himself to extend himself beyond them, but the displacement of his understanding and the action that he may choose to bring about varies directly with the intensity of the light that he can cast on his own freedom of movement, intellectual or whatever. Maybe that light is a fire held out against those limitations that is kindled when they are first felt. And it all might happen in a private, uncommunicable methodology, that you are presuming to teach. Whereas inventing it may be all that I really care about. Think about sexual courtship and how much energy you might expend in figuring it out, if you happen to care that much about that. Don't consider self-help manuals for writing GSATS. I was exempted from mine.
clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (03/29/88)
In article <2039@mind.UUCP>, Eliot Handelman blithers: >When a thing becomes aware of its limitations, intellectual or whatever, >this thing, a man, say, may motivate himself to extend himself beyond >them, but the displacement of his understanding and the action that he >may choose to bring about varies directly with the intensity of the >light that he can cast on his own freedom of movement, intellectual or >whatever. Maybe that light is a fire held out against those limitations that >is kindled when they are first felt. And it all might happen in a private, >uncommunicable methodology, that you are presuming to teach. Whereas inventing >it may be all that I really care about. Think about sexual courtship and >how much energy you might expend in figuring it out, if you happen >to care that much about that. Don't consider self-help manuals for writing >GSATS. I was exempted from mine. (1) Become a lawyer. (2) Stop wasting Usenet resources on this drivel. -- Chris Long Rutgers University RPO 1878 CN 5063 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)-932-1160 clong@topaz.rutgers.edu
eliot@mind.UUCP (Eliot Handelman) (03/30/88)
In article <Mar.29.03.07.58.1988.21187@topaz.rutgers.edu> clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes: > >(1) Become a lawyer. > >(2) Stop wasting Usenet resources on this drivel. One day, fellah, you might, through some mismanagement of our pedagogical resources, find yourself in the position that you described earlier, "helping" gifted kiddies. And your dullness and lack of understanding is going to be noticed straight off by one of the kids in your class. Because whenever you fail to understand, you don't assume that somebody is saying something that you might actually have to think about - you conclude straight off that what they're saying is drivel. I called that, in an earlier posting, "resentment". Face up, pal, you're not "interested" in helping gifted kids. You feel threatened by people of any age with better brains than yours. You just want to kill the feeling in yourself that that are a whole lot of people out there who are intrinsically more gifted than you are. Tata, sci.psychology. I've got better things to do than have discussions at this level.
clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (03/30/88)
In article <2042@mind.UUCP>, Eliot Handelman writes: > One day, fellah, you might, through some mismanagement of our pedagogical > resources, find yourself in the position that you described earlier, > "helping" gifted kiddies. Is there something wrong with teaching at below the university level? In my opinion, something should be set up to allow, no encourage, professors to teach 1/4 - 1/2 a year at various high schools. I'm trying to do my bit; I'm currently arranging to lecture on preparing for the SATs at my old high school. No big deal, but it's a start. > And your dullness and lack of understanding is going to be noticed > straight off by one of the kids in your class. Gee, I hope not. Ya, see, I keep it hid *real* well. > Because whenever you fail to understand, you don't assume that somebody > is saying something that you might actually have to think about - > you conclude straight off that what they're saying is drivel. I call ANYTHING intentially obfrucated drivel. > I called that, in an earlier posting, "resentment". Face up, pal, > you're not "interested" in helping gifted kids. You feel threatened > by people of any age with better brains than yours. You just want > to kill the feeling in yourself that that are a whole lot of people > out there who are intrinsically more gifted than you are. This is a pointless comment. Everyone feels this, some to a greater, and some to a lesser extent. What *I* want is to prevent other kids from going through the crap that I had to deal with when I was growing up. When I was in 5th grade I was tested at the 9th grade + in terms of mathematics knowledge. Did I get access to math resources, encouragement, *anything* at all from my teachers at that point? No! Was I accelerated? No! Why didn't *I* do anything about it? I didn't know any better! I used everything I had available to the maximum, but that wasn't much. I had to wait until 6th grade for some real math, when I bought "Experiments in Topology" at a book sale for $.99. From that point on, I was on my own, buying any and all math books I could get my hands on. Didn't amount to too much, though. The neighborhood library? The most advanced book they had was some bit of strange work entitled "Non-Newtonian calculus", basically worthless. They re-did calculus using general tangent curves as opposed to just tangent lines... big deal. The notation was pretty, though. I have all kinds of stories like this to tell, like me having to continually correct my *biology* teacher in 9th grade about basic probability. He was the type who always thought each element of the sample space was equiprobable, just like the Monty Hallers over in rec.puzzles. I do math because I *love* it, not to impress the "kiddies" and make myself feel good. > Tata, sci.psychology. I've got better things to do than have discussions > at this level. I hate discussions at this level also. I don't plan on making this a habit, and I'd like to hear any *constructive* comments on your part. -- Chris Long Rutgers University RPO 1878 CN 5063 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)-932-1160 clong@topaz.rutgers.edu
vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) (03/30/88)
In article <Mar.29.19.48.51.1988.3633@topaz.rutgers.edu> clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes: >In article <2042@mind.UUCP>, Eliot Handelman writes: >> Tata, sci.psychology. I've got better things to do than have discussions >> at this level. What really offends me about Eliot's posting and others that support the Hi-Q societies is the implication that there is a *linear* scale of intelligence, an absolute measure of intelligence (even if it is currently unknown or poorly formulated), and that it *really means* something to say that I am more intelligent than you (or vice versa). This blatantly ignores that thought has many forms and modalities, and that intelligence is not one thing but rather highly complex, with many different manifestations. It is easy to see how the other idea, combined with a bit of insecurity, can lead to the kind of arrogance, insularity, prejudice, and ultimately paranoia that I feel many of us sense in their postings. I'd like to relate my own experiences on this matter. In 4th grade I was given intelligence tests. Our teacher was asked to "point out the bright kids" to the suited white man from "the county." I recall quite vividly how some of us were selected, taken down to a special room, and with no explanation asked strange questions (you know, three different size pails of water, vocabulary, all the usual crap). I watched my interrogator make two kinds of marks: a plus most of the time, the occasional minus when I *knew* I didn't know. On this basis I spent grades 5-8 in a special education program for "gifted" people. My experiences were decidedly mixed. Our group was predominately male, no blacks, one or two orientals (Fairfax County Virginia is excessively affluent, but with significant minority populations). We were given a lot of time to play, do group projects, make up games, little formal reading or math. We did as little as possible to get the assignments done. Things were couched in that early 70's edu-speak where there is never a right answer. Cutesy algebra was snuck in in 5th grade, group theory in 7th. Nevertheless I got a C- in real algebra in 8th grade. Looking back on it, I can see that even given that extra training I still had *no idea* what a variable was! We were given time and attention, but no wisdom, no discipline. I still feel that lack today, and try to (over?) compensate. The worst thing, and where I can relate this to Eliot's posting, was the attitudes instilled in us. We were called different things. Before I got in the program, we were called "superior learners" (what an offensive phrase!), derisively as "soopies" by our "inferior" school-mates, then finally "gifted and talented". Many of us revelled in our privelege, and fancied ourselves super-beings deserving of absolute praise no matter our performance. Our insularity was total. We were removed from our local community, from real ("normal", "inferior") people. We shared all our classes together, making up perhaps 20% of our school population. We rode the bus together every day, ten of us 45 minutes each way. Our homes were separated by long car rides which our doting parents eagerly gave us. Our personality disorders were amplified by the group, so much so that I know some of us will never succeed in real society. When I got to high school (there was no high school program), while my curiosity and intellectual ego were undoubtedly enhanced, I was at a severe social disadvantage which I'm still overcoming. I don't intend to indict special programs in general. No doubt they can be done better than mine was. No doubt also I can partially credit my subsequent academic and intellectual success to my "special training." What I want to point out is that ELITISM CORRUPTS, and intellecutal elitism cuts a person in half, saying that your brain is a valuable commodity, more important perhaps than your person. It is terribly easy to objectify intellect, separating it from its subject, thereby placing a false value on it and its holder. This process leads to belief in that value by the subject, and subsequently to arrogance and paranoia. I recall watching the Bill Moyers piece about evil on PBS last night, and listening to a Jew condemm the highly educated doctors and lawyers of the 3rd Reich who provided the social and institutional glue for the slaughter. Belief in one's personal power and superiority is probably the most corrupting influence on a person, especially in an individualistic and competitive society which reinforces and rewards such perceived power and superiority. I fear that secret caballs where self-styled geniuses scratch and claw for membership and dominance provide a seductive breeding ground for the kind of intellectual absolutism which is a hallmark of evil. Rationale without emtion is empty; intellect without wisdom is perilous. O----------------------------------------------------------------------> | Cliff Joslyn, Professional Cybernetician | Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, New York | vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .
clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (03/30/88)
In article <1015@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>, Cliff Joslyn writes:
{excellent article deleted}
An idea: why don't educators let the kids who *want* to take
accelerated courses take them? In 7th grade my science teacher
wouldn't recommend me for IPS (intro. to physical science), the
starting course of the fast track in science. His reasoning?
I kept poor notes. Four years latter I set a school record in
the New Jersey State Science day competition; 8th place in chemistry
at the senior level while I had a severe head cold. I *loved* science.
A stubborn kid, I still found it in my heart to apologize and be let
back in the class from the "stand out in the hall" punishment whenever
any science, especially astronomy, was brought up. Oh, I eventually
got let into the advanced science track after enough begging, but
not until I had taken the "regular" biology with the already
referred to "Monty Hall" teacher.
Let the kids take what they want. If they choke, they did it
to themselves. Give them good libraries, ample computer access,
good journals (RIP Mathematics Student), and above all, *people
with knowledge* to talk to. When I was in High School, I would
have given my right arm to talk to anyone interested in mathematics,
especially my own age. Even at Rutgers (25,000 students) there
are no other undergraduates interested in problem solving to the
extent that I am. Thank the gods for journals and Usenet.
--
Chris Long
Rutgers University
RPO 1878 CN 5063
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
(201)-932-1160
clong@topaz.rutgers.educlong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (03/31/88)
I wrote: > Even at Rutgers (25,000 students) there are no other undergraduates > interested in problem solving to the extent that I am. Not entirely true. Just today I ran into a sophomore who asked me all kinds of questions concerning problem solving. The topic came up because we both took the Bogart math prize exam (an award exam at Rutgers). -- Chris Long Rutgers University RPO 1878 CN 5063 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)-932-1160 clong@topaz.rutgers.edu