<p>Marathonman:</p>
<p>You took words right out of my mouth!</p>
<p>some would concede that hitler was intelligent-he could manipulate, lead, was an orator that, unfortuneately, rallied people, he was a reader of the masses and figured out how to use fear to create a following</p>
<p>intelligence is relative at best when it comes to superiority</p>
<p>marite:</p>
<p>Where I grew up, it was common to explain how common sense tells you that African-Americans (though not the usual term used) are dumb, lazy, smelly, immoral, and God knows what else. It’s given me a distaste for the term.</p>
<p>You’ll get no argument about economists from me. As my good friend and next-door-neighbor (a pretty famous physicist) likes to say, economics attracts the world’s best fifth-rate minds. But I would disagree that their problem is “common sense.” To my mind, common sense is most usually associated with that which is “common,” in other words, that which can be observed and is prima facie obvious.</p>
<p>What you seem to be describing is post-decisional behavior generated by devotion to a bias – a pet theory, for instance. You can find this is any ideologue. But I don’t think beating this is at all “common.” In fact, I’d say it’s rare.</p>
<p>To me, the ability to think well relies on three things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Strong logic skills as the rules of logic have been laid down since the Classical Greeks.</p></li>
<li><p>The internalized understanding that logic can never be better than the underlying assuptions on which the logic is built, and that those assumptions must be constantly identified and subjected to rigorous proofs.</p></li>
<li><p>The internalized understanding that devotion to a revealed “truth” leads intelligence to merely build a web of arguments to support that truth, even if the truth is not true at all. Which means that superior thinking depends, in my book, on a complete understanding that no conclusion can ever be more than probability.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In essence, intelligence must be trained to be most useful. An intelligent individual with a poorly trained mind is like a super-strong man with poor coordination. One can admire both, but both are very dangerous to be around.</p>
<p>I agree that some classes should be segregated by ability, and hard enough that gifted kids struggle in them. Not just to teach humility-- also to foster intellecutal joy-- “brain sweat” as one teacher I know calls it.</p>
<p>
For me, the title means that it is truly important that those who are in the higher end of the intelligence spectrum learn wisdom, compassion, and humility. It is likely that those who are “gifted” may end up in positions of power in our culture – politicians, lawyers, business people, doctors, teachers etc. Given their potential influence, it would be a mistake to neglect their education in the arts of human kindness. One of the worst outcomes I can imagine is the very gifted student who never learns that the benefits he/she receives come as a matter of the genetic lottery, as opposed to being deserved by sheer superiority. The example of kids that coast through life without ever really challenging themselves, or running into problems they have to struggle with, is scary to me.</p>
<p>tarhunt:</p>
<p>I guess that we have a different definition of common sense. To me, it does not mean “received wisdom” or the “knowledge” of the man in the streets. Some risky adolescent behavior, for example, can be imputed to lack of common sense rather than lack of intelligence. They “know” better than engage in certain behavior, but do not have the common sense to refrain from it.</p>
<p>I do not disagree with your definitions of intelligence. I wonder, however, if the qualities they describe amount to wisdom–which is also different from real knowledge (however provisional you may think that knowledge is).</p>
<p>I sure like SBmom’s model which includes “intellectual joy and brain sweat,” more than Murray’s evocations of "a teacher who is dissatisfied with their best work and [courses] that force them to say to themselves, “I can’t do this.” Murray’s call for learning humility rings hollow when it serves as a set-up for lines like these. </p>
<p>His three “think pieces” are anything but a call for teaching humane values such as wisdom and humility. His thrust is that only a select band of people of “superior intelligence” (narrowly defined by IQ in his mind) need or deserve rigorous education, and he’s pushing some pretty reactionary ideas for what the shape of that education should be.</p>
<p>In my 50 odd years of life I have noted that the human qualities “intelligence” and “goodness” are neither related or mutually exclusive. And that the “elite” amongst us would have us think otherwise.</p>
<p>toblin:</p>
<p>I completely agree with you. The idea that we can somehow get outside American culture and encourage those who are brilliant to somehow devote themselves to those who are not so brilliant is, at best, optimistic. In our culture, many of the extremely intelligent will see their advantage as something to be exploited to the detriment of others.</p>
<p>actually goodness and wisdom are also different things. Anybody thinks that Murray’s piece is a riff on Plato?</p>
<p>marite:</p>
<p>I suppose I think of “common sense” as something that, by definition, must be “common.” That would suggest what the man in the street “knows” that those who are well-educated do not. I’ve most often heard it in the context of “he has book smarts but no common sense.” I remember an uncle of mine insisting that common sense shows that the Apollo moon shots were screwing up the weather.</p>
<p>It appears to me that you’re using the term, at least in part, to describe maturity. I think of maturity as being very different from common sense, but at least the two of us are able to define our differences. That’s something, isn’t it?</p>
<p>marite:</p>
<p>To be fair to Plato, he lived through a time in which every form of government he ever saw was discredited. So, the philosopher king seemed like a good idea if it could ever be done. Even the idea of representative democracy or the republic is based on the idea that some are more able than others to govern. I have no problem with that, though I do have a problem with Plato’s antlike Republic.</p>
<p>I think of common sense in part as maturity, but not tied to age, specifically. For example, many of the high-flying academics who, in my opinion, do not exhibit common sense are advanced in years. </p>
<p>Agree about Plato. But I also remember that his Republic was based on a slave system. Leaving aside the ethics part of it, it means that the overwhelming majority of the population was not deemed worthy of an education. We can’t know whether the slaves were intelligent or not. Intelligence and ignorance are again different things.</p>
<p>Thanks for input, #4, zoosermom. I’ve studied gifted education a lot, partly to help my son and partly to understand myself, since the field has advanced its knowledge a lot since I was a child. Hard work and giftedness are not the same, some people get high grades, achieve a lot because of the work they do, the gifted person does not have to work hard to get the same grades or accomplish the same things. Think of the (statistical) bell curve for IQ- there are two halves, the below and the above average. Consider that for every below average person there is a mirror image above average person; most people are around average, there a few profoundly gifted and ■■■■■■■■ people and corresponding percentages inbetween. We are willing to acknowledge that some people are severely to moderately ■■■■■■■■, why can’t we acknowledge some are moderately to severely gifted? It reminds me of Lake Woebegone where everyone is above average, only in this case people try to be egalitarian and can’t allow people to have superior intelligence. We allow superior athletes, musicians and others, why not do the same for intellect? If you look at lists of characteristics published for identification of giftedness you find ones that differentiate between bright and gifted (the bright ones above are the hard workers) and between HDD (hyperactivity…) and giftedness. Giftedness is as real as retardation, some do not like the terminology used, but I know of none better. I consider it a “gift” for a person to have high intelligence. BTW, there is no hard and fast cutoff, there is a continuum, educators have to draw a line somewhere, often at the upper 3-5% of the population. Notice the shape of the bell curve, there are far fewer highly gifted people than “averagely” gifted people. Also note that the 30 point differences in IQ’s of 70-100, 100-130 and 130-160 are the same, yet people often lump all gifted people together as if they had the same abilities to comprehend whereas the IQ 70 people are not expected to function at the same level as the average, IQ 100, person. The highly gifted people, especially, need an appropriate education, just as much as ■■■■■■■■ people do- imagine an average person having to attend class with an all ■■■■■■■■ group, we routinely subject gifted students to the average pace of learning. How many of you would thrive in a classroom where basic shoetying and such were major accomplishments after kindergarten?</p>
<p>Do we expect gifted athletes to also be more mature, have more common sense, give more to society, have more humility or exhibit other exceptional traits? Not from what I’ve noticed in our culture. Why is intellectual giftedness equated with having all other desirable traits? There are correlations with a higher sense of morality than agemates and other traits in gifted children, but do they face any more obligations than anyone else in society to use their gifts or perform higher in other aspects of life?</p>
<p>A button was pushed about a subject I am passionate about. The beliefs/attitudes of the majority of our society will not change the facts, only how we deal with them. There are now enough studies out there to dispel many myths, common knowledge of the facts is still lacking, even among most teachers. I now understand why the grade school teacher tried to put a highly gifted girl and me together all the time, I was way ahead of the rest of the class, but she was equally ahead of me, totally out of my league…</p>
<p>People don’t understand the needs of the highly gifted, no matter what research studies are published. There is still the attitude that they will be fine, stuck in classes with other kids “rising to their level” or in pull-out “gifted” classes, with children whose IQs are 30 points lower, but still “gifted”.</p>
<p>It’s like a taboo to discuss giftedness, or to assume that any child is…shudder…more intelligent than another. Wis has this one right on. Too bad more people don’t understand this issue at all.</p>
<p>
That may well be true. And one wonders what it does to the rest of Murray’s argument.<br>
It sounds as if the Harvard faculty (interchangeable, I assume with the faculty of top universities) is intelligent but not wise, and possibly not good. Certainly not fit to be the political leaders of the country. Good only to teach undergraduates at Harvard or other top universities. If so, there does not seem to be much reason for hand-wringing. The damage must be minimal since the combined population of these top universities is fairly small.
The population that should be a target of greater efforts seems like it should be the moderately rather than the highly gifted. There are more of them, and they are more likely to be leaders–of companies, of political parties. The higly gifted, when not found in academia, are more likely to be back office nerds.
I believe the needs of the highly gifted need to be addressed, but not necessarily for the reasons Murray gives. Every child should have a chance to excel, to accomplish as much, to aim as high as s/he is capable of.</p>
<p>I find this topic and the opinions expressed herein fascinating. Hubby and I are relentlessly ordinary, and Zoosergirl is statistically middle-of-the road with some nice talents and interests that will serve her well. She is also kind, empathetic, warm and loving. She is a true bringer of joy every day. My husband and I have a total comfort zone with her. Zoosersister is a whole other matter. She’s so vastly different from us that she might as well be from another planet. If I hadn’t seen her emerge from my body, I would think that a mistake had been made. Believe me when I tell you that I’m not bragging about her at all. I am proud of her, but I’m completely out of my depth. Raising this child has been like living with a celebrity since she was a small child. Yes, she maxed out the IQ scores, got fantastic scores and grades, but it’s waaaaaay more than that. She’s good at everything, just picks up things that take most people time to learn, has remarkable observational and decision-making skills and always has. She also is incredibly magnetic and a natural leader, just draws people to her and bends them to her will – but she’s not a manipulator. My mom swears that Zoosersister is going to be a cult leader someday and ZS herself says that she wants to rule the world. The thing is, though, that she’s not a kind, patient, generous person. Somehow, along the way, those attributes haven’t sunk in – she’s not unkind or mean at all, but she’s always in such a rush to the next thing that, well, I don’t know. We’re working on it, but heaven only knows what will happen with this alien child. I do think that having a child who is “different” on either end of the spectrum can be challenging for average Joes and Janes like us.</p>
<p>marite:</p>
<p>Your opinions seem, to me, to be strongly anti-intellectual. Am I misreading this? As for the highly intelligent either teaching undergrads or working in a back office, let me throw out some names:</p>
<p>Socrates
Aristotle
Bacon
Newton
Galileo
Copernicus
Descartes
Edison
Ford
Taylor
Deming
Einstein
Keppler</p>
<p>Shoot, I left out entire areas of human endeavor and still have a pretty good list. Were these just moderately gifted people?</p>
<p>I think what is being said here is that truly gifted kids need to be challenged so they don’t always coast, destroying their work ethic, or reinforcing their feelings that they can get by with doing very little if anything. There are many overachievers out there who work hard to equal what the gifted do without having to do anything. And I praise them. But in a challenging class for truly gifted,the gifted would actually have to work, and the overachiever would still do well, but not at the level they were accustomed to. It is time the gifted take challenges that place them in the same situation as the overachiever.
As to teachers having problems, quite frankly, in my experience, most of the time, it is the parents of the “above-average” students who can’t deal with the fact that their child is not truly gifted that give the toughest teachers the hardest time. The parents of the truly gifted usually like to see their kids do well, and when they get a 5 on the AP test, they love the teacher! There is an element of those parents that feel that GPA and class rank are more important than what the child learns. All they care about is the A, nor matter how earned, in order to game the system. Many times, these parents tell their children to avoid the hard teacher, because of the threat of a B. And if that can’t happen, then they start their reign of terror. And we are seeing more and more of these types of parents.</p>
<p>"in my experience, most of the time, it is the parents of the “above-average” students who can’t deal with the fact that their child is not truly gifted that give the toughest teachers the hardest time. "</p>
<p>It’s funny that you say that because we are currently dealing with a situation like that. There’s a girl in ZS’s class who she went through middle school with. The girl’s mother believes that she and ZS are intellectual equals and gets insane (even to the point of attacking my gentle-giant husband) whenever things happen that show otherwise, which they often do. The girl is sinking like a rock in IB classes and ZS has attained her usual celebrity status. The situation may becoming to a head, though, because it’s accelerating. I often think of the Texas Cheerleader Mom story and wonder when the hitman will be coming for me! Anyway, this mom is making the teachers’ and the program director’s lives miserable. The shame is that the girl is perfectly bright, perfectly lovely and her mother doesn’t appreciate her at all because ZS receives so many accolades that the mother (not so much the kid) feels should be hers.</p>