<p>truthseeker: that’s exactly it. I don’t want to talk over anyone’s head, and so I employ a filter, as luisarose does. But not having to use that filter enables one to speak more directly and truly and naturally, and that is a good thing. If you’re trying to convey complex ideas, not having to stop and interpret the words helps. Have you ever spoken to a foreign person? You have to stop and think about what you say, so that you use words they will know. Your words come out haltingly and without precision, because you are limited by the words they will understand. This is how it is to have a large vocabulary and be limited by that of the person to whom you speak: you have to transform those big, efficient words into smaller, less exact words, and it slows you down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes – thank you. I make a musical analogy sometimes, too - if you’ve ever played an instrument in a group (even just high school), you know that the absolute best way to improve is to play with people who are better than you and learn from them. Just hearing them play is important to improving yourself. I think that principle applies to certain “elite” colleges, and that’s why I feel that a school like MIT would serve me better than UConn.</p>
<p>I don’t want to overstate the differences in the intellectual capacities between students at MIT and UConn, or between Yale and Arizona State, or any other pairing you like. It’s not as though a Yale student has to use one-syllable words to communicate with a student from Arizona State. But the density of people who are interested in arcane stuff, and who already know a lot of arcane stuff, will be significantly higher at Yale than at Arizona State. That just makes Yale more fun if what you want to do is sit around and talk about arcane stuff.</p>
<p>I can understand how a reference to “gene pools” makes some (maybe all of us) squeamish and recoiled. Images of human engineering come to mind, fascism, etc. But when we’re talking about preferring to be around kindred academic souls of similar intellectual quality, as well as dating pools, I don’t think it’s that far-fetched, especially given where out science is at and the direction its headed in genomics and related fields. And of course a whole host of bioethical questions come in, and bioethicists certainly are going to be in demand. But think about even the counter-argument a few of us have made in response to the high academic quality “density” argument. I and others have suggested that a kid can do just as well by pursuing (and living in) an honors college at a flagship (and so I asked why at a gut level that still doesn’t seem to do it for some of us). But even in THAT scenario, it is being suggested that a kid approximate the more “prestigious” options by essentially recreating the same at the flagship…in other words, surrounding oneself with peers of a certain quality, migrating to fellow students who one can relate to and be challenged by…and not have to micromanage one’s vocabulary. And even the proponents of the value-laden, less elite options indicate that they are seeking the same lofty end-goals (e.g. salary potential, etc), and are just disputing whether the more elite options are needed to get there…so, they are basically saying that was is desired is the same while believing they can get there with less cost and less glitz.</p>
<p>Essay prompt (and less dramatic versions of this are already happening):</p>
<p>You are you spouse are given 4 options based on samples provided when you meet with your genetic reproductive specialist:</p>
<p>1) Having a child that will have a rare congenital disease and likely die by age 6.</p>
<p>2) Having a child born with Downs who with the best programming will achieve functioning in the mild MR to borderline range of intellectual functioning (and have the usual range of health and longevity issues).</p>
<p>3) Having a relatively normal kid with an IQ of 108.</p>
<p>4) Having a relatively normal kid with an IQ of 145.</p>
<p>What are you and your spouse going to choose?</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that colleges are actually asking stupid questions like this on essays?</p>
<p>Sent from my SCH-R760 using CC</p>
<p>Final - you go first. What would you choose?</p>
<p>No. Hunt wasn’t saying that those were college essay prompts. Think conceptually.</p>
<p>Given the options, #4 obviously, but if the high IQ kids turns out to be Ted K, it would have been quite a poor choice.</p>
<p>Sent from my SCH-R760 using CC</p>
<p>The likelihood of a Ted K is 0 in the first two options, and extremely low but equal in terms of base rates with options 3 and 4.</p>
<p>^^ Or Ted Bundy.</p>
<p>How about would you rather have a child with a 145 IQ that was self-centered, arrogant, and conceited, or a child with a 108 IQ that was loving, compassionate, and caring?</p>
<p>Sent from my SCH-R760 using CC</p>
<p>Ted K was a genius, so rule out 1, 2, and 3.</p>
<p>Sent from my SCH-R760 using CC</p>
<p>Plenty of non-geniuses have done what Ted K did and much, much worse. IQ has no correlation to violence, just as most believe mental illness highly correlates with violence which also is not true.</p>
<p>As for the other question, you don’t get to ask in hindsight. You’re picking based on the info you have at the time. Many parents of Downs kids will swear (genuinely and convincingly) that the child was the best thing that ever happened to them and enriched their lives a thousand fold, but, again, that’s after the fact. That has nothing to do with what they would choose given the choice ahead of time.</p>
<p>Ted K’s particular brand of madness was closely associated with his high IQ.</p>
<p>I think another good question is is if you found out that the baby you were carrying had a low IQ, would you abort it, and would be the miimum IQ threshold.</p>
<p>Sent from my SCH-R760 using CC</p>
<p>It is clear to me that some people have a really tough time accepting the fact that a person can be extremely bright and have no major imperfections. A student can be exceptionally bright and NOT be socially awkward, unattractive, selfish, arrogant, mean, un-athletic, or mentally ill.</p>
<p>Was just chatting with D. A really sweet friend of hers hadn’t found an internship yet, so D recommended her for the one D did last year. I already knew this girl was super smart, as well as being one of the best runners on the team. But D informed me that the friend is also artistically talented and has worked as a model! It’s intimidating for us mere mortals to meet kids like this, but they actually do populate the top schools.</p>
<p>riprorin’s comment in #374 is true, given that Kaczynski was admitted to Harvard at age 16. What happened to him there, in a long-term psychology experiment that he participated in, really ought to be part of the discussion of his actions. See:
[Harvard</a> and the Making of the Unabomber - 00.06](<a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/06/chase.htm]Harvard”>Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber - The Atlantic)</p>
<p>Human subjects clearance requirements for experiments have improved since then, though possibly not enough, really.</p>
<p>I know plenty of really smart people who are gifted socially and in other ways. Did someone suggest otherwise?</p>
<p>Sent from my SCH-R760 using CC</p>
<p>Abortion? Sure are treading into some sensitive areas.</p>
<p>No Rip, that is not a good question. #374</p>
<p>Riprorin, people suggest such things all the time on these threads. The implications are sometimes subtle, but they’re there. Consider all the comments about arrogance, pomposity, snobbiness, and childhoods that were abusive or abnormal.</p>