Why are some abilities considered differently from others?

[dmallind]

A couple of other threads started me thinking about this and I wonder if there is an explanation out there. It seems that there are two "classes" of abilities. One where an innate difference is acceptable and one where it is not.

If I stated that Mozart had more innate musical ability than Milli Vanilli, nobody would disagree. Sure Mozart was tutored and drilled by his father, a stern taskmaster, and had to learn things about music which are not innate over time. But does anybody think Fabrice whatever his name is with the same drilling and education would have written passable music by the age of 6 and great music by the early teens?

If I stated that Barry Sanders or Carl Lewis had more innate athletic ability than, well almost anybody, nobody would argue again. Yes they trained their bodies hard, and yes they followed no doubt strict diet regimens too, but if I exercised as hard and ate the same things could I run as fast and be so agile? Not a chance.

Intellect is the poster boy for the second group though. Outside white supremacist circles, and even then only on a silly basis, it's considered at best impolite and at worst outrageous to say that some people are born with more innate intellectual ability. Even though the processes that control intellect are obviously just biology/neurology exactly like athletic or musical ability. Sure the Diracs and the Mills out there have to work hard and be taught, often very rigorously just like athletes or musicians, but no amount of education would make me Paul Dirac any more than any amount of training would make me Carl Lewis, and I say that as someone a damn sight closer (but not all that close at all) to the former than the latter. There is still a huge qualitative difference between a true genius and a normal reasonably intelligent person, and then another huge difference on the other side of course, between the normally intelligent person and the utter dolt.

Again this is the same as the above. Lots of people can carry a tune or play an instrument with some skill. Some people cannot play Peppy the Porpoise without weeks of practice and never get beyond it. Plenty of people can run well and play a decent game of softball, and some people can't run three steps without falling over or hit a floater if their life depended on it.

Other abilities fall into this category where it is near verboten to claim that there are innate differences - weight loss being an example form a thread just yesterday.

ButI am unable to see a consistent theme or underlying explanation. WHY is it OK to realize that some of us can be major leaguers if we try hard, most of us can be rec league players if we try, and some of us will never be able to play worth a crap no matter how hard we try, and yet not to realize that some of us can be Rhodes scholars if we try hard, most of us can benefit from some tertiary education if we care, and some of us just aren't going to get beyond basic grade school.

I exclude of course medical dieabilities. Trust me I know that people realize paraplegics can never be Carl Lewis, and that mentally handicapped folks can never be Dirac. I just wonder why there is a different opinion for those born without any such handicaps - why is it OK to say only a few can make the majors, and not OK to say only a few can be Rhodes scholars.

[AngryAmish]

1. Because IQ wise it is considered anti-egalitarian or racist

This should be a good sized shit storm.

[OneBlueSky]

2. indisputable case in point . . .

Barack Obama has more innate intellectual ability than George W. Bush . . .

but then again, so does Pee Wee Herman . . .

[patrice]

3. I don't know that it is unacceptable to talk about the differences in individual intelligences.

It IS unacceptable to ascribe those differences to the biology of Race, because, if you came up with the range of intelligence that characterises each Race, you'd find the differences WITHIN each group are greater than the differences BETWEEN the groups.

[dmallind]

4. Agreed on the race front

But just taking people as a single group, there is significant resistance to things like streaming in education, as well as a pervasive anti-intellectualism in American culture. Even on an individual level, people who (without overt bragging or exaggerated boasts) discuss their athletic exploits in a casual location such as a bar or party are never considered to be arrogant even if those exploits are unattainable to most, but people who discuss, similarly without bragging overtly, their published papers on logical positivism or their command of Hungarian as a fourth non-native language almost always would be.

I don't think the double standard can be denied, I'm just wondering if it can be explained.

[patrice]

8. Very true and it IS an interesting question indeed. I generally explain it to myself as a defensive

mechanism, i.e. "You're saying there's something wrong with me, because I can't spell logical positivism, let alone write a paper about it," and then they react against what they think, mistakenly, is your perception of them, by attacking the value of the standard, IQ, by which they think they are being judged.

I've always been interested in words, so I use them. Quite a few of my younger years were spent dealing with people who thought I was "putting them down."

[LanternWaste]

5. While I don't take pride in my ignorance...

While I certainly don't take pride in my ignorance on most topics, I will concede without qualifier and admit to all that most people are much more intelligent than I am. I'm certainly not going to make any pretenses or pretend that I'm more clever than I really am.

That being said, I've never met a person who knows more about everything than I do, and I've never met a person who knows any less about everything than I do. We often validate ourselves by saying something to effect of "America (or Nation A, or State B, or City C) is a nation/state/city of idiots." And I feel compelled to disagree with that...

One of my best friends knows next to nothing about politics, but is a heavy hitter in the financial investments sector (and a computer whiz to boot). At bar-b-q's, parties, etc., we hang on his every word when it comes to analysis and editorial of the money markets. But get him talking about Asian history or Biblical-era literature, and he's for all intents and purposes, a walking tabula-rasa.

So he's very aware about some things, and incredibly ignorant about others-- as are we all I imagine. Once we accept that, it becomes nothing more than a popularity contest of ideas, concepts and topics-- which subject is more important than another. And that I think, is highly subjective.

I'll never judge a person on how well they can throw a perfect spiral pass, nor will I judge anyone on how well they can interpret ancient Greek. I will however judge them on how nice, how civil and how respectful they are to those around them (but that's probably my own sin to bear..)

It's a very interesting quandary you pose-- and one I think we should all give consideration to...

:hi:

[Fumesucker]

33. Judging by your well written, logical and properly spelled post..

I would put you in the top ten percent easily.

No, your post isn't perfect, but it's a post to a discussion group not a dissertation.

[pinqy]

6. I've never encountered what you're talking about

I've never heard anyone speak against there being inherent intellectual differences between individuals. It's only when it is applied to groups that the concept is condemned, and rightfully so. I'd be happy to read some examples, if you can present some, but I don't think you'll have much luck.

[dmallind]

9. This is yesterday's example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4619031

But it's consistent and multi layered. Wear a Mensa T shirt one day and a shirt proclaiming your membership in the sub-five minute mile club the next and see which gets you resentful glares and which gets you interested and respectful questions. Go to a PTA meeting and suggest extra funding for the gifted class and see how many votes you get compared to the guy who wants extra funding for the state champion varsity football team. If one has to be cut, try and make it the latter. See what happens. Since when did bumper stickers ever get printed and widely sold saying "My kid can beat up your track and field letter kid"? Why is pointy-headed intellectuals a recognizable phrase of contempt and square-headed linemen not? Why do intellectuals supposedly distance themselves in ivory towers and the musically gifted never distance themselves in foam conservatories?

Are you saying you've never noticed the resentment of intelligence in others compared to the joyful acceptance of other biological gifts in others? Really? Do 65,000 people go to quiz bowls every Sunday to cheer on geniuses competing in the name of their town (the vast majority of whom have no real connection to it beyond their job)? Does anyone who cares about baseball get called an elitist for discussing the intricacies of squeeze play rules? Do presidential candidates who can play instruments really well get told they have to work on the "common touch" or they won't win the working class vote?

[mondo joe]

10. Problem there is that no normally functioning student should be unable to acheive a level

of competence.

Getting a B or an A doesn't mean you're a genius - it means you're competent.

[dmallind]

14. But that is a false assumption, and a problem itself

There are students who are C students, and will remain so. If not why make Cs a pass? If normal functionong should generate As and Bs why is any student allowed to do anything else without being a remedial project?

I agree that A's and B's measure not genius but competence of different levels but even this is a problem in and of itself. We give our highest grades to kids who are geniuses, and to kids who have reasonable competence. We do not give the same athletic honors to the analogous performers on the field.

By making A's the grade for basic awareness, we implicitly deny that there is a difference between that level and any level above it, from superior or extraordinary awareness to true mastery. A's SHOULDN'T be for competence, as that means competence and mastery are valued the same. It reinforces my point really rather than refutes it - in intellect (and ONLY in intellect) we devalue the right side of the curve and seek to pretend that barely past the peak of the curve is as good as we want and as good as you should aim for.

[mondo joe]

16. In my opinion, any normal functioning student ought to be able to perform

at B or A level.

That said, not every kid has the opportunity or resources to get them there. A kid whose family just doesn't give a fuck isn't as likely to do well.

That's not a sign of the child's intellect though. Not every kid gets to realize his or her potential, but that doesn't mean they don't have the capacity.

[dmallind]

17. But I must ask again

What use is a highest level grade that any normal functioning student can achieve? Does that not speak volumes about what we value when it comes to intelligence - artificially capped conformity that does not exclude anyone?

Isn't that like saying pro athletes should never be recognized, or rewarded, or even segregated beyond rec league levels? Thst Albert Pujols and Johan Santana should be playing in the local park and just part of the usual D league sports bar sponsored team rather than recognized as superior performers and allowed to compete at and with their own level to ensure that the best baseball is produced?

If Joe Blow is an A, what can John Genius aspire to, or be recognized by, or be used as an example to others with?

You are right. It is wrong that you are right.

[mondo joe]

20. Because though any normal functioning student has the capacity to achieve an A,

not every one will due to a variety of obstacles to realizing that potential.

I have no problem with the grading system, as I believe there needs to be a measure.

In *my opinion* the grade shows what has been achieved - not how brilliant the student is or isn't.

[AngryAmish]

22. Grades reflect mastery of a subject, not how hard you work

An A means you have completely mastered the material. For some people they know the stuff already. Some people have to work tremendously hard at it. Some people, no matter how hard they try, are mediocre intellectually. (That is why IQ is on a bell curve - half the people are below average).

I do not mediocre intellects to be surgeons or research scientists. The education will be lost on them.

[mondo joe]

25. And so i said it measures achievement.

Achievement doesn't mean how hard someone worked.

But my point was, and remains, though not every kid is performing to his or her potential that doesn't mean he or she is intellectually inferior.

Intellect is part of demonstrating achievement in competence, but not the entire thing.

[dmallind]

40. I just can't wrap my head around that I confess

If the highest grade possible is one that any non-handicapped child can achieve, why on earth can it remain the highest grade possible? Isn't that reducing education to "good enough" (A) and "not good enough"? Isn't that idea in itself an indication that no exceptional ability or performance is sought or valued, and none will be recognized? Do we really want that?

[mondo joe]

42. Let me try another way of saying this:

In my opinion, the A grade ought to reflect the minimum achievement that any functional student should optimally be able to arrive at. Not a reflection of intellect, and certainly not a reflection of genius, but what we'd ideally want all kids to know or be able to perform at that development level. Some would get it more easily than others, some would require more work, but it ought to be achievable.

But because we know all kids do not have the optimal background, conditions, etc, some are going to come in lower - hence B and C grades. A D-grade would represent such under performance that the child must be held back.

That's MY opinion - not something I'm suggesting is widely held.

It's not "good enough and not good enough". It's more like optimal, better than adequate, adequate and less than adequate.

I further think there should be avenues to recognize exceptional ability, but not through that grading system. (I'm thinking about older daughter who maintains that getting a 100 is failing, because to pass you have to get the 100 plus the extra credit.)

[PVnRT]

34. Only because of grade inflation

My elementary school report cards listed A's as "Outstanding: 95-100."

I've at a few classes were 85% was an A. So you're right, but not for the reason you think.

[mondo joe]

43. Well, sometimes dialogue is just a process to determine why I'm right.

;-)

[pinqy]

12. It's not there

I looked through and no one claimed that there are no inherent differences in intellect. What you're talking about now is respect/appreciation of intellect, not denial of inherent differences.

[dmallind]

15. Yes it is.

I seem to recall that EVERY kid can achieve being stridently claimed. And the other examples? Or is DU the only possible source?

[pinqy]

26. That every kid can acheive...

..is not the same thing as claiming there are no differences in intelligence. Basically you are inferring that what people are saying is that there is no inherent difference in intelligence. But no one is actually saying it, as far as I can tell.

[distantearlywarning]

7. I've wondered about this for years myself.

I expect your post will start quite the flame war, because it's taboo even to bring up the subject.

But you're right, despite what the Jealous Jeffries and Jennifers on DU will probably say about you and your motives.

[Deep13]

11. Liberals value equality and are unwilling to make distinctions...

...of greater or lesser inate intelligence even when such a distinction is justified. I value equality, but I am not willing to pretend real differences, some of which are objectively better than others, do not exist.

[LibDemAlways]

13. Yesterday my daughter commented that two of her 10th grade

friends are taking Advanced Placement Biology. One girl isn't even trying very hard and is getting an "A." The other is working her butt off and barely getting a "C." The first girl excels academically without putting forth much effort. Everything comes easy to her. The other girl is driven by her parents to take the more challenging courses but finds them very difficult.

My daughter's school urges all kids to take Honors and/or AP courses which, frankly, I think is ridiculous. Some kids aren't up to the task and are setting themselves up for failure. The local continuation school is overflowing with kids who couldn't "cut it" academically around here.

My daughter is bright and finds the regular college prep curriculum challenging enough. She gets "A's" but not without a lot of effort.

You are right. Not every kid is going to be a Rhodes scholar, nor should they be. I think the schools need to do a better job of determining where a student's strengths lie and capitalize on them instead of forcing every kid into a cookie-cutter mold. And I applaud any college admissions board that takes individuality and potential into account.

There are inate differences in intelligence. Ask any teacher.

[Johonny]

18. Because some abilities are easy to measure

Run a 100 yard dash. The guy crosses the line first is faster. It's easy. Now measure intelligence... that's not so easy. Is an A student more intelligent than a C student. I think most teachers will point to clearly intelligent students that got C's in their class. Ah but what about IQ tests. IQ tests measure something, but what? Is intelligence a single scalable figure, like say 100 yard dash times? It turns out the answer is no. Intelligence even after 100+ years of attempts to measure it remains very much a mystery.

[gravity]

19. It is because IQ tests assume intelligence is a pure innate skill

which makes it a taboo subject and this whole idea of actual practice and education is understated. Believing that you are not smart enough because of innate differences will create just a self fulfilling prophecy.

These innate differences can separate the best of the best, but for the majority of the population, it is practice and hard work that makes the difference.

You may never become a world class runner, but almost anybody if they train hard enough will be able to run a marathon. If you believe that you can't run a marathon because you lack an innate ability, then of course you aren't going to do it.

[surrealAmerican]

29. I read about a study some years ago that found ...

... that the best students are those who believed that success comes from "hard work", while those who thought that their "innate intelligence" would determine their success, did not do as well.
Why try at all if you assume that because you weren't born with the ability to do the work, you will never have that ability?

[surrealAmerican]

21. Part of the issue is that we don't really know ...

... how much intellectual ability is inherent verses how much is a result of environment. I would tend to argue the same about musical ability as well, but, since a person can function perfectly well in our culture with almost no musical ability, it is not a stigma to admit you are lacking in that area.
Nobody wants to try and determine which people are intellectually lacking because it raises some very uncomfortable questions about how we should treat them. Should we stop trying to teach children who are "unable" to learn the same material as their peers? How can we be sure this child is "unable"? Should we doom him or her to a lifetime of low-paid, menial labor? What about the inevitable mistakes, those children we thought were "stupid", but were just having a bad day when they were tested, or were perhaps "late bloomers" who would catch up, and perhaps surpass the other children in a few years?

[AngryAmish]

23. Twin studies suggest 40-70% of differences in IQ are heritable

But that is also in dispute.

[Occam Bandage]

24. Because people believe that intelligence makes one's mind more valuable,

and given how closely related the mind and the Self are, people don't like thinking that their existence is less valuable than other people's.

[KittyWampus]

27. There is a huge difference in "making the majors" & making an impact or important contribution

George Washington Carver wasn't a Rhodes Scholar, neither was Ghandi.

But then, they are all famous.

However, many people achieve things on an intellectal or material level that impact others greatly.

My wonderful English teacher in high school comes to mind. He made Hamlet fun.

[EstimatedProphet]

28. There's nothing at all wrong with admitting that some people have greater intellectual abilities

No one could argue that more time spent studying would make someone into an Einstein or a Wittgenstein. That would be absurd. So we have to admit that some have more intellectual capabilities than others. It isn't about saying that some people have more, it's about saying that some people have less. Too often, the people that have less missed out on opportunities, or perhaps have another issue holding them back.

[MedleyMisty]

30. You'll find some posts about this in my history

I think that mostly it comes down to ego - stuff that makes us feel pity and feel superior to the person afflicted with it is okay and cool. Stuff that makes us feel inferior is not so cool.

Plus there is the fact that our culture is fucked and comes up with the idea that intelligence equals personal worth by equating intelligence with financial success and then connecting how much money and material crap you have to your worth as a person. Thus the whole "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" and "Why you reading? You think yore better 'n us?" And yeah, I relate it to sports ability too and wonder how these people manage pro sports emotionally when their egos can't take anyone being better at anything than they are, but now that I think about it - if you're just naturally bad at sports it doesn't hurt you that much in life. Huh.

And there is all the racist, sexist, and classist crap connected to the idea of IQ. If you search for "giftedness", you find a lot of white upper middle class SAHMs who are a bit overly obsessed with their kids. If you search for "IQ", you find a lot of white upper middle class men getting their self-esteem from an IQ number and getting off on being genetically superior to the lower races and classes and genders - although they do think that Ayn Rand is pretty cool as people who are disabled with two X chromosomes go.

If they're at all telling the truth about their scores, it just goes to show that IQ tests are not the end all be all of measuring intellect. They seem unable to think about environmental and cultural differences and how that may affect someone's test score (and I imagine that their environmental and cultural advantages inflated their scores somewhat), and they also seem unable to think of people as individuals and instead think of them as simple cardboard cutout categories that can be placed in a hierarchy of value with themselves at the top.

And then people on the other side of the issue are also unable to think of all the things that could affect a person's IQ score or scholastic achievements, and seem to agree with the prejudiced assholes - if they didn't agree with the underlying basic premise of the racists, they wouldn't protest the conclusions of the racists so much. God, I'm sucking at explaining my thoughts on this. I guess what I mean is that if people did not agree with the idea that intelligence = financial success = personal worth and that IQ scores and scholastic achievements are the only way to measure intelligence, their egos wouldn't be so invested in the issue and they wouldn't feel the need to protest that all kids are gifted, etc etc. It's like how if you're very insistent that Obama's skin color didn't matter and that you voted for him because he was the best man for the job, I'm going to wonder if you really mean that he's the best man for the job in spite of his skin color because if it wasn't an issue for you, you wouldn't go on and on about how it didn't matter.

And so some innocent little kid who's just doing what comes naturally and reading college textbooks in third grade or doing calculus in fifth grade gets all this ego and prejudice and fucked up ideas about intelligence and worth projected on to him or her and suffers for it.

As for me - I think that we are born with different genetic potentials for cognitive ability. I don't think that cognitive ability has anything to do with our worth as a person - all you need to do to have infinite worth is to be a living being. I have only read a couple of popular books on physics so this metaphor is probably stupid, but it works for me - our genetic potential is a probability wave and our environment is the observer that acts on the wave. A nurturing and enriching environment can push a mediocre genetic probability up to scoring high enough on an IQ test to brag about it and how superior you are to the person taking your order in the drive-thru (I once worked at Arby's and was nearly driven to suicidal insanity by people treating me like I was shit). A destructive and deprived environment can take a genetic probability for brilliance and hide it where average people will probably never find it. One of my coworkers at Arby's was funny and nice and smart. He had grown up in cheap hotels with his drug addicted mother and moved in with friends as soon as he graduated from high school. Last I heard he was working at Cinnabon's. As an intellect and as a human being he could run circles around the assholes on the high IQ society boards and blogs.

In conclusion, here is a thought to drill into your mind.

Cognitive ability is not personal worth or an expensive degree or a job that pays six figures. It is simply a biological difference, like skin tone or hair or eye color. My personal ability is part of what makes me who I am and I should celebrate it while accepting and celebrating the different abilities of others and working towards the day when we all have what we need to develop our different potentials as far as they can go.

Oh, and if you're wondering - I guess I'm in the middle of my two examples. My family was emotionally secure growing up, and financially secure in that I had what I needed and we could afford books. My parents were factory workers, and my father died when I was seven. We lived in a relatively poor rural area - my high school only had four AP classes.

So I didn't get all the enrichment an upper middle class kid would get, but I got more than the average kid in a poverty-stricken city who goes to a school where there aren't enough textbooks for everyone and the ones that are around are years out of date and there's a lot of violence.

I was reading at two, doing my brother's senior English homework for him in second grade (IIRC, he got a B+), tested at "college level and above" on an individual IQ test in fifth grade, and scored high enough on the verbal part of the SAT in 7th grade to go to Duke's TIP program. And I never bought into the money equals personal worth or the you must produce external socially approved achievements thing, so now I am quite happily settled into a job that isn't prestigious and doesn't pay very much but allows me plenty of autonomy and time to think. Rather like Einstein's clerking job. ;)

[juno jones]

39. Your Arby's comment made me chuckle.

I've been working in restaurants for the majority of my adult life. I fell into gourmet fine dining right off so I missed out on the fast food experience, but I promise you I've dealt with the same "if you're working here, how smart can you be?" mentality.

Funny thing is, I have worked (and are currently working) with a LOT of people who held degrees. Even master's and doctorates. Mostly Art, Theater, Music, English, History, once even medicine. I've had some incredible conversations over trays of boiled cabbage or smoked chicken.

Sure, there's some idiots out there, butyou really gotta be smarter than most people give credit for to have certain underpayed and undervalued jobs. Why do I stay? Because I am free. I wear, act, and think how I like. There are interesting people to talk to while I'm working. But the most wonderful thing of all, when I walk out of the bakery in the morning, I feel clean. I have made bread for thousands of people as opposed to contributing in some small cog-like way to the people who screw us daily.

The old saying is true, Treat all people well, you never know which one of them is a king in disguise.

[rrneck]

31. There is a sizable industry devoted to the measurement

of physical ability. Every sports event is basically that. People's physical performance is measured to the hundredth of a second. I'd be willing to bet that there are more statistics generated for athletes than for economies. Thus, people are more comfortable with the idea of evaluating physical performance.

For all of our intellectual and technological ability, we all still have to live and function in a physical environment. Even the Albert Einsteins of the world still have to walk, eat, and evacuate. Plus, many intellectual achievements still have to be expressed in the physical world. Music, the visual arts, dance, theater etc. are all consumed based on their physical properties and are not usually evaluated based on the intellectual effort that went into their creation.

The concern for not evaluating intellectual ability has an aspirational quality. We can look in a mirror and know our physical limitations, but we all want to believe that, given a lot of hard work and a few lucky breaks, we could achieve the software upgrades we need to excel. And those aspirations are not entirely unfounded. The human species has not succeeded because of its physical prowess, but because of our intellectual ability. We are, as a species, much more developmentally flexable intellectually than physically. Maybe that makes it somehow sacrosanct at a very deep emotional level.

[Greyhound]

32. As you know from another thread, I believe it is because we are stuck in a factory mindset.

A 19th century factory. The idea of conforming to the system is so ingrained in us that few can even conceive of any other way.

[rrneck]

36. If you get me started on how

our schools are designed to make employees instead of human beings and citizens I'll never get to work.

Refresh my memory if you would...which thread?

[Greyhound]

37. Oops, it was the OP on that thread, here it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4619031&mesg_id=4619031

[Greyhound]

38. Yep, obedient cogs, that's the goal.

Who needs to think? Thinking just makes you dissatisfied with the parasite's game.

[Fumesucker]

35. There are different ways of being intelligent..

Some people can write extremely well while barely being able to balance a checkbook whereas others are mathematically gifted but have trouble writing a complete sentence.

Intelligence is not a singular thing, it is multifaceted and everyone has facets which shine more brightly than others.

Most liberals at least would agree that Bill Clinton is intellectually brilliant, and yet he did something as stupid and self destructive as boinking an aide in the Oval Office.

[Karenina]

41. Thanks for the thread, dmallind! Welcome to DU posting!

:hi: This is indeed a "third rail" topic. You've been around long enough to know the drill. ;-)

[Boojatta]

44. Someone will eventually figure it out.